HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 City of Lansing Flood Mitigation Plan Addendum to Hazard Mitigation Plan March 2005ExecutiveSummary ...................................................................................................1
HazardDescription....................................................................................................2
FloodplainDevelopment............................................................................................2
PlanningMethodology...............................................................................................3
ProjectImplementation.............................................................................................5
Funding.................................................................................................................... 5
Post -Disaster Mitigation.............................................................................................5
ProposedProjects.....................................................................................................7
Summary.............................................................22
Glossary................................................................................................................. 23
Appendix A: Potential Project Lists
Appendix B: Floodplain Maps
Appendix C: Floodplain Inventory (under development)
Appendix D: Project Updates
Overall Flood Mitigation Strategy
Apply the principles of the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management to flood
mitigation as follows:
• Modify human suweptibiiity to flooding; Encourage and assist with floodproofing
homes and businesses; Improve flood,forecasting and warning. -
• Modify the impact of flooding; Raise awareness; Make all levels of the community better
prepared to respond to and recover from flooding.
• Changing flooding itself,- Add floodwater storage; Provide structural protection to
developed areas where possible, without increasing flooding elsewhere.
• Preserve and restore natural resources; Stabilize riverbanks using natural means;
Improve the health of our rivers.
Phase One (2005)
• Adoption of Hazard Mitigation Plan by City Council, including the flood -specific mitigation
plan as an addendum
• Preparation of comprehensive floodplain inventory
• Identification of engineering studies, elevation information, etc. needed for high and
moderate investment projects
• Identification of funding sources to gather information (technical assistance, mitigation
grant funding, cost sharing, etc.)
• Implementation of low investment projects
• Apply for participation in NFIP Community Rating System, in order to:
- Lower insurance rates for residents
- Guide and evaluate the mitigation progress
- Ensure compliance with state and federal floodplain regulations
Phase Two (2006)
• Based on information gathered in phase one, determine which huh and moderate
investment projects we will implement and how they will be funded (grants, cost sharing,
etc.)
• Revisit project list and reassess potential and ongoing projects
• Assess progress based on NFIP Community Rating System
Phase Three (2007-2009)
• Implement huh and moderate investment projects as funding becomes available
• Revisit project list and reassess potential and ongoing projects, seek input for new projects
• Assess progress based on NFIP Community Rating System
Phase Four (2010)
• Revise Hazard Mitigation Plan, update and integrate flood mitigation plan
• Update Floodplain Inventory
• Revisit project list and reassess potential and ongoing projects, seek input for new projects
• Assess progress based on NFIP Community Rating System
1
This flood mitigation plan has been prepared by the Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskforce
as an addendum to the City of Lansing Hazard Mitigation Plan. This document details
specific projects recommended by the taskforce for further investigation and how they
will be pursued. This information was not available at the time the Hazard Mitigation
Plan was finalized.
Hazard Description
Lansing has three large and two small waterways identified by the National Flood
Insurance Program: the Grand River, Red Cedar River, Sycamore Creek, Pawlowski
Creek (Mud Lake Drain), and Reynolds Drain.
Reynolds Drain
The floodplain is made up of two parts: the
higher risk floodwayand the flood fringe.
By current estimates there are
approximately 90 structures in the
floodway, and approximately 600 in the
flood fringe. Several critical facilities are
located in the flood fringe, including
infrastructure and vulnerable populations.
An updated floodplain inventory will be
completed in June 2005. It will include
location, approximate value, and elevation
(if known) of:
• Residential and non-residential
structures in the floodway
• Residential and non-residential
structures in the flood fringe
• Critical facilities (emergency response, critical infrastructure, chemical storage, and
vulnerable populations)
• Bridges, pump stations, electrical substations, and other infrastructure
• Private wells and septic systems
Creek
A floodplain inventory should also identify repetitive loss structures. Repetitive loss
structures are defined by FEMA as structures with two flood losses within 10 years.
There are no repetitive loss structures in the city.
Surveys may be required to determine elevation for some structures. This would be
included as part of the Critical Infrastructure Assessment project (M6) detailed later in
". this plan.
N
4 A more complete description of the flood hazard and the impact of flooding in Lansing,
is included in the hazard/vulnerability analysis section of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
J
Planning Methodology
The Flood Mitigation Taskforce is organized by the Lansing Emergency Management
Office and included the following members:
Steve Aichele, US Geological Survey
Jerry Belligan, Lansing Board of Water and Light
Steve Blumer, US Geological Survey
Gerry Brady, Potter Park Zoo*
Byron Callies, Ingham Regional Medical Center
Jim Campfield, Public Service Operations*
Paul Dykema, Parks & Recreation*
Skip Forbush, Public Service Wastewater*
Ann Francis, Envision Urbandale
Steve Hayward, Lansing Township
Joan Nelson, Allen Neighborhood Center
Ronda Oberlin, Emergency Management*
Brian O'Boyle, Safety Director*
Matt Penniman, Allen Neighborhood Center
Sam Quon, Computer & Communication Services*
Sue Stachowiak PlanningNeighborhood *
& ighborhood Development
Les Thomas, State NFIP Coordinator
Mark Walton, National Weather Service
*City of Lansing department
The scope and purpose of the taskforce is to:
1. Identify problem areas (i.e. IRMC Penn, Urbandale)
2. Brainstorm possible solutions
3. Assess the feasibility of potential solutions
4. Prioritize projects based on available funding
The taskforce began with the list of potential projects included in the Hazard Mitigation
Plan and sought out additional suggestions from case studies, flood mitigation
literature, and from taskforce members and the groups they represent.
The projects were evaluated based on overall mitigation goals, and on individual project
criteria. We did not attempt to prioritize or weight the evaluation criteria.
3
Mitigation Goals
• Reduce the impact of flooding (protect life and property)
• Encourage residency and economic development (make the city a better place to
live)
• Preserve and restore natural resources
• Encourage recreation on and around rivers
• Keep neighborhoods strong and intact
Project Criteria:
• Economically justifiable
• Technically feasible
• Socially equitable
• Environmentally sound
Two other planning efforts taking place in the city were also considered in evaluating
projects: the pre -planning study undertaken by Corps of Engineers for the Economic
Development Corporation in August 2004, which focuses on improving recreation on
and around the Grand River; and the Envision Urbandale project, which focuses on
improving quality of life in Urbandale, the largest residential area in the floodplain.
Lansing has several neighborhoods in the floodplain and the taskforce is aware of the
need to focus equally on the needs of residents in all areas. After the initial project
a evaluation was complete, the taskforce went over the entire project list again from a
geographic standpoint to ensure that the needs -of all floodplain residents were being
addressed.
Because of the importance of community input in mitigation planning, public outreach
was conducted in developing both parts of this plan. Chapter four of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan outlines stakeholder input received in development of the overall plan.
Flood mitigation strategies which received the greatest public approval at that time
were:
• Limitations on future floodplain development
• Increasing public awareness
In developing the flood mitigation plan, input was sought specifically from floodplain
stakeholders. Representatives from the Allen Neighborhood Center and Envision
Urbandale were part of the Flood Mitigation Taskforce. Flood mitigation measures
specific to Urbandale were also presented at the March 2005 meeting of the Urbandale
Advisory Group, and one-on-one conversations regarding potential flood mitigation
measures have taken place between Emergency Management and the directors of the
North Network Center and Baker-Donora Focus Center.
2
Project Implementation
Twenty-one projects were identified to be implemented or further investigated. They
were categorized based on the investment in time or money required to implement
them.
Each project will now be pursued by a larger workgroup. The taskforce itself was kept
relatively small in order to move through the first phase of the task quickly. The
workgroups will include a broader group of stakeholders and perform a more in-depth
analysis of individual projects where needed.
The City of Lansing Emergency Management Office is responsible for facilitating
strategy implementation, monitoring progress of individual projects, and recommending
revisions or updates to the flood mitigation plan. Emergency Management will
accomplish this by participating in project workgroups, and working closely with its
partner agencies to guide the mitigation process.
The complete project list is on page 7.
Funding
All projects pursued will be funded through federal mitigation grants (Flood Mitigation
Assistance Program, Pre -Disaster Mitigation Program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)
unless otherwise noted.
The taskforce and workgroups will be creative in seeking funding. Grants, technical
assistance, and matching funds will be sought from other agencies and stakeholders as
appropriate. Fund-raising, donations, and cost -sharing may be used to make the
program feasible for all stakeholders.
Post -Disaster Mitigation
The goal of this mitigation plan is to accomplish as much as possible before the next
flood. However, a flood often provides unique opportunities for mitigation.
Some of those opportunities include:
• Higher level of interest in flood mitigation in the community
• Requirement for improving substantially damaged structures to post -FIRM standards
• Funding to replace flood -damaged infrastructure to a higher standard
• Funding for residents through Increased Cost of Compliance payouts from NFIP
A comprehensive pre -plan for post -disaster mitigation is being developed under Project
LI2: Emergency Planning and Documentation of Flood -Fight Strategies, detailed later in
this plan.
0
J
Projects Not Selected
The lists in Appendix A demonstrate the evolution of the potential mitigation projects as
they were discussed in the initial Flood Mitigation Taskforce meetings. The first project
list was a generic list compiled from national sources, along with local projects
suggested by stakeholders over the past several years.
Some projects were determined to be already in place and were not discussed further,
others were found to be not feasible. Those projects were removed from the list. Many
other projects were combined or redefined, resulting in the project list on page 7.
The projects that were determined not to be feasible by the taskforce and removed
from the list were:
Project
Reason
Identify and assess potential for structural
All three of these projects relate to
mitigation of urban -flood prone areas
storm -related urban (street) flooding.
unrelated to flood lain
Areas of the city where significant urban
flooding currently occurs should be
Raise manholes in flood prone areas to
prevent flood damage to infrastructure
improved by completion of the CSO
project.
Increase capacity of stormwater pump
stations
Levees to prevent minor/moderate flooding
The affected area is in the floodway,
on Lindberg Drive
which prevents any protective action
that would raise the flood elevation
elsewhere. Even if a levee were built, it
would only protect at lower flood levels,
which are an inconvenience, but not a
threat to life or property in the
neighborhood.
Signs in the floodplain indicating base flood
Signs were viewed as too intrusive. A
elevation
variety of other awareness projects will
be implemented.
N.
J
HE - High Investment (Grant + Engineering Analysis Required)
Project 1: Add Floodwater Storage
Project 1A: Urbandale Protective Actions
Project 2: IRMC Protective Actions
Project 3: Museum Drive Protective Actions
HA - High Investment (Additional Funding Required)
Project 1: Subsidizing retrofit of private homes to Post -FIRM standards
Project 2: Property Acquisition
Project 3: Dakin Street Bridge Repair/Replacement
Project 4: Replacement of infrastructure to a higher standard
M - Moderate Investment (Additional funding may be required)
Project 1: Update of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Cooperative Technical Partnership)
Project 2: Lower River Level
Project 3: Bank Stabilization
Project 4: Additional Flood Gauges
Project 5: Drains
Project 6: Assess Critical Infrastructure
Project 7: Education for Insurance, Mortgage and Real Estate Professionals
LI - Low Investment (Commitment of existing resources)
Project 1: Participation in Community Rating System
Project 2: Emergency Planning and Documentation of Flood -Fight Strategies
Project 3: Business Continuity Planning for Small Businesses in Floodplain
Project 4: Public Education Program
Project 5: Disclosure Requirement for Landlords in Floodplain
LT - Long-term (Planning Considerations)
Integration of floodplain considerations into master plan and departmental procedures
7
HE - Hi h Investment (Grant + Engineering Analysis Required)
HE1: Add Floodwater Storage Area
Through landscaping, an area or areas would be created along the Red Cedar to divert
some floodwater from populated areas. Places that could potentially be used would be
part of Crego Park or the cleaned up portion of the Board of Water and Light (BWL)
sludge pond. The BWL site is 40 acres, five of which are currently available.
This project could be combined with HE1A to provide even greater flood protection for
the Urbandale area.
Issues to consider: Crego Park may be an identified wetland, which would require
additional impact studies.
Next steps:
• Contact Corps of Engineers to determine the scope of the study needed to
determine effectiveness
• Identify funding for study (possibilities include: Corps of Engineers, mitigation grant,
technical assistance from DEQ)
• Assess potential sites for environmental concerns, identify other potential sites
• Perform study (model with and without additional protective actions for Urbandale)
• Perform cost/benefit analysis
• Determine design for retention area
Workgroup agencies: Public Service, Parks & Recreation, Emergency Management,
Lansing Township, National Weather Service, BWL, Corps of Engineers, MDEQ,
Urbandale Advisory Group
HEIA: Urbandale Protective Actions
US-127 could act as a dike around Urbandale if flood water could be prevented from
coming through the underpasses at Michigan Avenue and Kalamazoo, and through the
storm sewers. This could be done through a combination of sandbags or similar
materials at the underpasses and a system of gates or bladders to close off storm
sewers in the area.
Issues to consider: Water diverted from Urbandale would increase flooding elsewhere,
unless sufficient additional storage space was created (HE1). Cost may also be
prohibitive, depending on the number and means of storm sewers closed.
Next step: Engineering studies and other information gathering activities for HE1 will
include this project as an option.
HE2: IRMC Protective Actions
Ingham Regional Medical Center (IRMC) Pennsylvania campus is located in the 100-year
floodplain on Sycamore Creek. Methods being considered to protect the facility include
a levee, flood walls, and flood -proofing the affected portion of the building itself.
Issues to consider: To what extent can flooding be prevented at the hospital without
creating an adverse impact at another site (for example: it may be able to be protected
in a 10 year flood, but not a 100 year flood). The extent to which a hospital is allowed
to flood -proof under NFIP.
Next step: Contact Corps of Engineers to determine the scope of the study needed to
determine effectiveness. Investigate methods used by Amway Corp in Grand Rapids in
a similar situation.
Workgroup agencies: IRMC, Public Service, Emergency Management, National Weather
Service, Corps of Engineers, MDEQ
HE3: Museum Drive Protective Actions
The facilities along Museum Drive represent a significant, in some cases irreplaceable,
part of Lansing's culture and history.
• R.E. Olds Transportation Museum
• Impression Five Museum & Science Center
10 Michigan Museum of Surveying
• Riverwalk Theater
J
All of these facilities are directly adjacent to the Grand River, on the west side of
Museum Drive.
Research will be needed before specific protective actions can be recommended,
including surveys for building elevations, and a final determination on whether the
properties lie in the floodway or the flood fringe.
In addition to potential structural protection, Emergency Management and the Planning
Department will work with each of these facilities to develop a flood plan, including
business continuity, evacuation, and training of flood spotters.
Next step: Gather data on building elevation and location within the floodplain.
Determine what (if any) structural protective actions are technically feasible for sites.
Meet with Museum Drive representatives to discuss flood planning.
Workgroup agencies: Planning Dept, Emergency Management, Public Service, Facility
Representatives
4
Hi h Investment (Additional Funding Required)
HAi: Subsidizing Retrofit of Private Homes and Businesses to Post -FIRM
Standards
Owners of pre -FIRM homes and businesses in the floodplain are not required to meet
current flood code until substantial repairs or renovations are made to the structure. At
that time they are required by city ordinance and the National Flood Insurance Program
to bring the structure into compliance with current (post -FIRM) code.
Meeting post -FIRM standards may require a substantial additional investment by the
home or business owner.
We will seek grant funding to subsidize retrofit of floodplain structures to post -FIRM
standards. This will reduce flood losses and speed the return to normalcy following a
flood.
It will also result in reduction of flood insurance rates, both directly for individuals
participating in the program, and for all floodplain residents under the Community
Rating System (see Project LI1).
Next step: From the Floodplain Inventory, identify structures in the floodway and high
risk homes in the flood fringe. Work with neighborhood associations to contact
interested property owners and determine priorities for distribution of funds.
Workgroup agencies: Planning Dept, Emergency Management, Allen Neighborhood
Center, North Network Center, Baker-Donora Focus Center
HA2: Property Acquisition
Structures severely impacted by flooding and structures which are making flooding
worse elsewhere would be purchased and relocated or demolished. The land would
then become permanent green space.
A 1979 study by the city planning department identified 274 lots in the city and the
township which were flooded to five feet or more in 1975. The study recommended
purchasing the lots and removing existing structures for a total cost of $5.5 million.
The Flood Mitigation Taskforce is not recommending acquisition at this level. We hope
instead to reduce flooding in those properties and acquire only the most critical lots.
Issues to consider: How many properties? What value? Are they contiguous? Are they
in the floodway or the fringe? How would the land be used? Who would maintain it?
What are the long-term costs to the City? Benefits to the community? What is the
10
impact of the loss of structures to the neighborhood, to the City? What are the
alternatives to buy out? What is the cost/benefit to doing nothing?
Next step: Completion of floodplain inventory in order to identify potential property.
Meet with affected neighborhoods to determine whether project would be supported.
Determine value of property and identify sources of funding.
Workgroup agencies: Planning Dept, Parks & Recreation, Emergency Management,
Allen Neighborhood Center, North Network Center, Baker-Donora Focus Center
HA3: Repair/Replacement of Dakin Street Bridge
The entrance to Potter Park Zoo becomes impassable during times of even minor
flooding. The zoo is designed with flood considerations in mind and the largest and
most dangerous animals are housed outside of the 100 year floodplain. However, in
severe flooding these animals still may need to be evacuated.
The only egress from the zoo in flood conditions is over the Dakin Street bridge, which
spans the railroad embankments north of the zoo. The bridge was built by the railroad
in 1917. In 2001 it was evaluated and a weight restriction of 5 tons was imposed. The
weight restriction will make it impossible to evacuate the largest animals by truck.
This project is not considered eligible for mitigation grant funding.
t---
Next step: The City Attorney is currently examining a 1917 agreement in which Grand
Trunk Railroad agreed to maintain the bridge.
Workgroup agencies: Potter Park Zoo, Parks & Recreation, Public Service, City Attorney,
Emergency Management
The tol%wing projects are Priority 2; they will be addressed as resources are available
in 2005, or revisited in 2006.
HA4: Replacement of Infrastructure to Higher Standard
Based on the comprehensive floodplain inventory identify infrastructure in the 500 year
floodplain and determine the impact of flooding. Assess the need to replace or retrofit
infrastructure for flood protection.
A list of bridges impacted by flooding is on page 13. This information is more complete
than that included in the hazard/analysis section of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Other infrastructure currently known to be located in the floodplain includes: BWL
Eckert Station, Public Service Dept facilities on South Street, Fire Station #1 (access
11
�. only), Ingham Regional Medical Center Greenlawn (see Project HE3), and Consumers
Energy.
Depending on the findings of the updated floodplain inventory, this project could be
broken into two phases: infrastructure in the 100 year floodplain and infrastructure in
the 500 year floodplain.
12
BRIDGE ELEVATIONS
Grand River
Brid a Elevation
Flood Levels
Bride
Deck/Rail
Beam
loy
soy
100Y
500
Waverly Rd South
834.4
836.5
838.0
840.7
MLK Southbound
858.2
852.5
832.6
833.5
835.8
839.0
MLK Northbound
857.8
853.0
832.5
833.3
835.7
839.0
Riverwalk
-
Island Ave(Wolf)
838.0
832.0
826.5
830.9
833.0
837.5
RR Bride
835.3
828.0
826.4
830.5
833.0
837.5
Elm Street.
837.3
835.0
_826.1
830.1
832.0
836.7
Washington Ave
843.0
839.5
826.0
829.9
831.7
834.0
496 East
847.0
843.9
825.6
829.5
831.0
835.5
496 West
847.0
844.0
825.5
829.4
830.9
835.5
Kalamazoo Street
838.5
836.3
824.9
828.8
830.3
835.1
Michigan Avenue
837.7
831.8
824.1
828.0
829.8
834.5
Shiawassee Street
823.4
827.2
829.2
833.5
Pedestrian Bridge
Saginaw Street
850.0
847.6
822.7
826.7
828.7
832.4
Oakland Avenue
846.0
844.0
822.2
826.3
828.9
832.4
W. Grand River Ave
847.9
842.8
821.5
825.0
826.3
830.3
N. Grand River Ave
828.0
826.3
819.7
823.8
825.4
828.2
ML King Boulevard
842.0
840.0
818.3
822.1
824.8
826.0
RR Bride
826.0 1
832.0
817.3
820.8
822.0
824.0
Waverly Rd North
818.5 1
813.5
813.5
816.0
818.1
820.6
Red Cedar River
Bride
Deck Rail
Beam
loy
SOY
100Y
500
Riverwalk
Elm Street
841.0
828.0
826.0
830.0
831.9
836.2
Cedar Street
826.9
831.4
833.0
837.2
Beech Street
833.9
830.0
827.0
832.0
834.0
837.8
RR Bride
831.3
828.7
827.2
833.5
834.8
838.0
RR Bride
835.6
830.2
827.4
833.5
835.0
838.2
Pennsylvania
829.0
824.3
827.8
834.0
835.5
838.7
Aurelius Road
841.0
833.0
828.0
834.0
835.8
838.9
Riverwalk
RR Bride
832.0
828.5
828.5
834.5
835.6
839.0
RR Bride
837.0
828.2
829.9
835.0
836.0
839.3
Kalamazoo St
828.8
826.0
829.7
835.0
836.7
839.5
Svcamore Creek
Bride
Deck Rail
Beam
loy
SOY
100Y
500
Mt Hope Avenue
829.0
825.0
828.0
834.0
835.5
838.7
Cavanaugh Road
834.3
831.8
832.0
834.0
835.8
838.8
RR Bride
839.7
837.4
833.5
835.5
836.3
839.0
Aurelius Road
840.4
838.6
835.0
836.5
837.4
839.5
Jolly Road
839.2
1 835.5
1835.5
1 837.0
837.6
840.0
13
M -Moderate Investment (Additional funding may be required)
M1: Update of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Cooperative Technical
Partnership)
FEMA is in the process of modernizing flood insurance rate maps nationwide. Local
jurisdictions are invited to participate in Cooperative Technical Partnerships in order to
improve the quality of the maps.
Without CTP involvement by the community, map revisions will be limited to
digitalization of existing data, inclusion of any letters of map change, and spatial
corrections.
Under CTP we will be able to use information that has already been gathered (digital
layers created for GIS, LIDAR contour maps obtained by County Drain Commission,
etc.) to leverage federal and state funding for any detailed hydrological studies that are
needed.
We will also request that a flood stage forecast map be included with the map package.
This will allow the National Weather Service to provide detailed flood forecasts and
allow us to develop computer flood models.
Next step: Schedule initial scoping meeting with FEMA Region V and MDEQ to discuss
available data and determine what detailed studies may be needed.
Workaroup agencies: Computer & Communication Services, Planning Dept, Emergency
Management, Ingham County Drain Commissioner, Lansing Township, National
Weather Service, MDEQ, FEMA
M2: Lowering River Level
There are two means of lowering the level of the Grand River in the city: permanently
lower (open) the gates of the North Lansing Dam, or remove the dam partially or
completely.
The results of either action would be that the level of the river would drop about four
feet in the city, it would run faster, and it would be narrower in, its banks.
The Corps of Engineers study commissioned by EDC in 2004 estimated the cost of
partially removing the dam at $180,000. The cost of lowering the gates would be a
$55.00 state permit fee.
The benefit of lowering the river would be that the Grand would have a greater capacity
to take in flood water from the Red Cedar and Sycamore Creek, potentially improving
14
flood conditions along all three rivers. Parts of the Riverwalk that are now underwater
for part of the year would be accessible year-round.
The increased rate of flow would also improve the health of the river by increasing
levels of dissolved oxygen between the Moore's Park and North Lansing dams.
Removing.the dam would have the additional benefits of allowing greater mobility of
fish and wildlife in the river, and increased recreation on and around the rivers by
allowing boats to move more freely.
The fish ladder at the dam would still be usable if the gates were lowered.
Issues to consider: Plant growth along the newly exposed river banks would have to be
controlled, additional landscaping may be required; up to five boat launches would have
to be altered to be usable at the new water level; there may be erosion from storm
sewer outfalls; debris in the river may become a problem at the lower level.
Next step: Meet with stakeholders to discuss impact. Additional costs will be identified
at stakeholders meetings and funding sought if the group decides to pursue the project.
Perform cost/benefit analysis.
Workaroup agencies: BWL, Parks & Recreation, Economic Development Corporation,
LPD Dive Team, Principal Shopping District, Public Service, Planning Dept, Emergency
Management, MDNR, MDEQ
M3: Shoreline Stabilization
Already underway.Parks & Recreation has an ongoing program to identify grasses and
other plants that will minimize riverbank erosion.
Proposed additional action: Identify areas where declining trees may present a hazard
to bank stability or may create an undue debris hazard in flood conditions. Remove
trees and/or stabilize shoreline in those areas using appropriate planting or other
natural 'methods.
Next step: Perform assessment and identify scope of the project. Determine whether
additional funding is needed. Include in flood mitigation grant package if necessary.
Workaroup agencies: Parks & Recreation, Emergency Management
M4: Additional River Gauges
Already underway.• Additional river gauges will be installed within the next three years
as part of a joint Public Service and Transportation project. This will give us a much
better ability to monitor flood conditions in the city, This portion of the project is
_ already 100% funded.
15
Proposed additional action: Gauges should also be added outside the city to improve
flood forecasting, and existing gauges inside the city should be supplemented.
• Wire weight gauges (non -reporting) on the Grand in Eaton County
• Rain gauges (reporting) on the Grand in Eaton County and the Red Cedar in Ingham
County
e Staff gauges added at reporting gauge sites
• Reinstatement of Mount Hope gauge on Sycamore creek as a reporting gauge
Reporting gauges send data automatically to the National Weather Service in Grand
Rapids. Non -reporting gauges must be read locally and information submitted to NWS
(see Project LI2: Emergency Planning and Documentation of Flood -fight Strategies).
These gauges would be purchased and installed in cooperation with the two county
emergency management offices.
The final portion of the project will be to assess the possibility of having the wire weight
gauges in Eaton County and the new gauges installed in the city report to the USGS
and the National Weather Service.
Next step: Identify locations for wire weight gauges; determine who will be responsible
for installation; determine feasibility of having gauges report; apply for mitigation grant
funding.
Workgroup agencies: Public Service, National Weather Service, USGS, Emergency
Management, Eaton County Emergency Management, Ingham County Emergency
Management
The following projects are Priority 2; they will be addressed as resources are available
in 2005, or revisited in 2006.-
M5: Drains
Assess local drains for condition and performance. Determine if there is a need for
additional maintenance or structural improvements. Seek funding if need exists. Also as
part of this project, the procedures for monitoring and maintaining drains will be
assessed.
Workgroup agencies: Public Service, County Drain Commissioner, Emergency
Management, Planning Dept
16
J
M& Assess Critical Facilities and infrastructure
Assess critical facilities and infrastructure identified in the floodplain inventory for
vulnerability to flooding and potential for flood protection. Determine what mitigation
measures are feasible and seek funding to implement.
Next step: Survey for facility elevation if needed; identify or develop an assessment
tool; contact agency responsible for management of critical facility or infrastructure
Workgroup agencies: Emergency Management, Planning Dept, facility/infrastructure
management agency
M7: Education for Insurance, Mortgage and Real Estate Professionals
Work with the State NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) coordinator and trade
associations to provide education on NFIP requirements to local insurance agents,
mortgage lenders, and real estate agents.
Workaroup agencies: Emergency Management, NWS, State NFIP Coordinator, trade
associations
17
LI -Low Investment (Commitment of existing resources) 7
LI1: Community Rating System
The Community Rating System is part of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Participating communities are credited for mitigation and preparedness activities and
flood insurance rates for residents are reduced accordingly.
Depending on legislative decisions regarding the state's dam safety program, proving
NFIP compliance may earn an automatic 5% rate reduction. Additional points will be
earned by implementing the projects described in this plan. It is our goal to reach a
classification of 8 (on a scale of 10-1) by the end of 2006, which will earn a 10% rate
reduction.
Min Pts
Class
Rate
Reduction
4500
1
45%
4000
2
40%
3500
3
35%
3000
4
30%
2500
5
25%
2000
6
20%
1500
7
15%
1000
8
10%
500
9
5%
0 -
10
0
Points in the program are difficult to earn. Only one
community in the country has reached class two, and two
have reached class four. Our proposed five year goal is to
reach a class six, which will result in a 20% reduction.
Participation in CRS will provide a means of ensuring
ongoing NFIP compliance, and for monitoring and
gauging success of mitigation overall.
Next step: Compile proof of initial qualifying projects and
submit application.
Workgroup agencies: Planning Dept, Emergency Management, Public Service
LI2: Emergency Planning and Documentation of Flood -fight Strategies
Emergency Management will work with responsible agencies to document existing
flood -fight procedures and review them in light of the updated floodplain inventory.
Location and type of flood barriers that are needed at different levels of flooding will be
identified.
Placement of flooded road gauges to warn drivers of the depth of the water on the road
will be considered. Gauges could be placed permanently, or put into place when
flooding is likely.
Emergency Management will host a series tabletop exercises to walk through
procedures for 100 year flood levels.
Development of a formal post -disaster mitigation plan is also part of this project. The
goal of this mitigation plan is to accomplish as much as possible before the next flood.
However, a flood often provides unique opportunities for mitigation.
Some of those opportunities include:
• Higher level of interest in flood mitigation in the community
• Requirement for improving substantially damaged structures to post -FIRM standards
• Funding for residents through Increased Cost of Compliance payouts from NFIP
• Ability to replace infrastructure to a higher standard
A Floodwatch training program is being developed for Lansing by the National Weather
Service and will be presented in October, 2005. The program will be offered to Public
Service employees assigned to the Snow Watch program and ham radio operators
involved in the Skywarn program.
The program will explain how to read data from river gauges and report it to the
National Weather Service. It will also contain information from the Corps of Engineers
Ice Spotter program.
In 2006, the city will be participating in a dam break functional exercise with the Board
of Water and Light. The exercise is mandated every four years by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). We will lead up to that with a series of exercises
focused on flooding, including the tabletop walkthrough of floodfight strategy in a 100
year flood, and a damage assessment field drill in Urbandale.
LI3: Business Continuity Planning for Small Businesses in Floodplain
Lansing has dozens of small businesses and several large businesses in the floodplain,
including Frandor and businesses on East Michigan and East Kalamazoo.
The scope of this project is yet to be determined and will depend on the availability of
funding. It may be limited to distributing planning materials and offering planning
assistance from Emergency Management, or it may include workshops for fl000dplain
businesses featuring experts in business continuity. Again, depending on funding, the
workshops could be opened to other local businesses.
Businesses will be included in a mailing that will be developed by the Outreach Strategy
Team and sent by Emergency Management to all floodplain residents (see Project LI4).
The mailing to businesses will emphasize the need for business continuity planning.
Next step: Identify businesses based on updated floodplain inventory; work with
Outreach Strategy Team to develop appropriate business -targeted materials; identify
possible partners for businesses continuity planning.
19
,.. Workgroup agencies : Emergency Management, Outreach Strategy Team, other
potential partners inlude Economic Development Corporation, Chamber of Commerce
LI4: Public Education Program
An Outreach Strategy Team will be formed to identify public education strategies and
projects. Immediate projects will include:
• Flood reference libraries at Capital Area District Library Foster Branch, Allen
Neighborhood Center, North Network Center, and Baker-Donora Focus Center
• Mailing to all floodplain residents giving basic flood hazard and insurance
information
• Business continuity planning program targeting floodplain businesses
• Public access to floodplain map from the City website
Next steps: Set goals, and determine overall outreach strategy, prepare and distribute
materials.
Workgroup agencies: Emergency Management, Planning Dept, Urbandale Advisory
Group
LI5: Disclosure Requirement for Landlords in Floodplain
A 2004 study conducted by the Allen Neighborhood Center revealed that 50% of
— floodplain residents in Urbandale did not know they were in the floodplain. Rentals in
the area also run at about 50%.
J
Currently, landlords in the floodplain are not required to reveal to prospective tenants
that the property they are renting is at risk of flooding. Consequently, tenants do not
have the opportunity to purchase flood insurance for their belongings.
Standard rental policies do not cover flood damage and the landlord's flood insurance
policy only covers the structure, unless he or she elects to purchase an additional
contents coverage policy on behalf of the tenant.
The solution proposed by the Flood Mitigation Taskforce is a city ordinance requiring
disclosure of floodplain status to renters. We will work with the city's Housing Taskforce
to address this issue.
20
J
LT - Long-term (Planning Considerations)
LT1: Integration of Floodplain Considerations into Master Plan and
Departmental Procedures
Floodplain considerations are already part of the procedures for Emergency
Management, Public Service, Parks & Recreation, Planning, and many other city
departments. Each city department with a role in floodplain management is represented
on the Flood Mitigation Taskforce.
The flood exercises being planned by Emergency Management for 2006 will provide
means for each department to assess those procedures. Additional training or revisions
to existing procedures may be suggested as a result.
The Planning Department will also undertake an assessment of floodplain
considerations in the city's Master Plan.
21
,J
It is our goal to mitigate flooding while considering the day-to-day needs of our
residents and the preservation and restoration our natural resources; and to accomplish
this without creating an adverse impact elsewhere.
Mitigation in Lansing will be broad -based. The projects outlined in this .plan cover the
whole spectrum of mitigation as defined by FEMA:
• Property Protection
• Risk Communication
• Structural
• Preventive
• Information/Warning
• Emergency Response
All areas of the city affected by flooding were considered in the development of this
plan. Projects will ultimately be selected based both on the geographic area they
impact, and on the acceptability of the projects to impacted neighborhoods.
To be successful, mitigation must be a community -wide effort. We intend to be
successful by engaging stakeholders at all levels of the community in projects that
affect where they live, play and work.
22
'J
100 Year Flood Also called the Base Flood. It is the level of flooding
used for regulatory purposes by the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and for planning purposes
by Emergency Management.
It is the level of flooding with a 1% chance of
happening in any given year. It is not the worst
possible flood.
The NFIP also determines 10 year (10% chance of
occurrence), 50 year (5% chance of occurrence) and
500 year (.5% chance of occurrence) flood levels.
Base Flood Elevation The elevation (above sea level) that flood water will
reach at a given site in a 100 year flood. It is the
number used to determine whether a building is
vulnerable to flooding.
Flood Fringe The area that is covered by water outside of the
floodway. Water in the flood fringe moves more
slowly than in the floodway and the danger of debris
damage is less. Water in the flood fringe may still be
very deep.
Floodway Refers to the channel of a river and the surrounding
area that carries most of the flood water. Water in the
floodway moves very quickly and may carry debris.
Increased Cost of Compliance Most NFIP policies carry an "Increased Cost of
Compliance" rider which will pay up to $30,000
toward improving the structure to Post -FIRM
standards. The rider only comes into effect after a
flood that receives a presidential disaster declaration,
or after a claim that qualifies the building as a
repetitive loss structure.
Letters of Map Change Residents who can provide proof to FEMA that they
are not in the floodplain, as shown on the FIRM, are
issued a Letter of Map Change (LOMC). LOMCs may
be issued because the FIRM is shown to be in error,
23
or because there have been changes to an area since
the FIRM was produced.
Letters of Map Change are incorporated into the
community's new FIRM when it is produced.
Post -FIRM Structures built after the date of the community's
flood insurance rate map (FIRM). In Lansing,
structures built after 1981 should be in compliance
with the current floodplain ordinance.
Pre FIRM Refers to structures built before date of the
community's flood insurance rate map (FIRM).
Structures in Lansing built before 1981 are pre -FIRM,
and are grandfathered under the current floodplain
ordinance.
Repetitive Loss Structure A building is considered a repetitive loss structure
when:
Four or more flood insurance claims are paid
totaling more than $1,000 each
Two flood claims are paid within 10 years that, in
total, exceed the insured value of the building
Three or more flood claims are paid that, in total,
exceed the insured value of the building
Substantia/Damage Damage that would cost more than 50% of the pre -
incident value of the building to repair.
Damages are figured on the cost to repair, not the
actual cost of repair, meaning that damage is based
on the cost of having a licensed contractor completely
restore the structure to pre -incident condition.
The value of the building does not include the value
of the land or other structures on the property.
If a building in the 100 year floodplain is substantially
damaged, it must meet Post -FIRM standards after
being repaired.
24
�,. Substantial Improvements Improvements which will cost more than 50% of the
current value of the building (not including the value
of the land, or other structures on the property).
Property owners making substantial improvements on
property in the 100 year floodplain must make the
structure meet post -FIRM standards.
25
J
Dntnntial Pinnd 11Aitinatinn Drninrtc
Preventive —7planning
Structural I
Public Works
• Assess review process for new construction in the. . .
•. Structural improvements to allow closing of storm
floodplain
sewers (Urbandale)
• Require elevation certificates for new construction
Modification of bridges which would be inundated in a
• Drainage system maintenance
100 year flood
• Stormwater management
Raise manholes in flood prone areas to prevent flood
• Acquisition of repetitive loss structures
related damage to infrastructure
• Relocate or floodproof critical facilities in 500 year
Identify and assess potential for structural mitigation of
floodplain (Fire Station #1, C&CS, IRMC Penn)
urban -flood prone areas (unrelated to floodplain)
• Replacing infrastructure to a higher standard
• Increase capacity of storm water pump stations
• Levees to prevent minor/moderate flooding (Lindberg
Drive)
Property Protection —Tproperty
owners
Natural Resource Protection
Parks & Recreation
• Floodproof basements in and near the floodplain
• Assess effects of erosion
• Relocation of structures and reuse of property
• Assess need for sediment control
• Raise utilities above base flood elevation
• Assess changes to vegetation in floodplain
• Update of FIRM maps (Cooperative Technical
• Wetlands protection
Partnership)
Emergency Response
Emergency Management
Public Education
Joint
• Pre -disaster planning of temporary flood barriers (type
• Participation in the NFIP Community Rating System in
and location)
order to reduce homeowner flood insurance rates
• Flooded road gauges and other flood warning signs
• Public education for residents in the floodplain regarding
• Additional flood gauges
flood hazard and NFIP, including revision and
• Review of floodfighting strategies
redistribution of city's "Plain Facts about Flooding"
• Critical facilities protection
brochure
• Require landlords to disclose flood information to
renters
Page 1 of 1 1111105
Next Step
Grant
Preventive
Add flood water storage in Crego Park area, potentially in old
Determine scope of project, assess
Y
BWL sludge pond
environmental impact of using Cre o Park area
Acquisition of repetitive loss structures on Red Cedar in
Identify homes, rental or owner occupied,
Y
Urbandale
approximate value
Relocate or flood roof critical facilities in 500 year flood lain
Identify facilities, assess means of protection
Partner with otherlurisdictions in the watershed to implement
Approach at State Level?
No Adverse Impact or other flood lain management models
Adopt plumbing code to have greater regulatory authority over
Under consideration
stormwater drainage issues
1 nformation/Warnin
Update of FIRM maps (Cooperative Technical Partnership),
Obtain LIDAR data, new orthos; Sam Quon
including development of flood stage forecast map
contacting FEMA regarding CTP
Flooded road gauges and other flood warning signs
Location? Permanent or tem orar ?
N
Additional flood gauges
I Included in Public Service weather project
Emergency Response
Pre -disaster planning of temporary flood barriers (type and
Determine what would be needed in 100 year
location)
flood. Consider sandbag alternatives, or
purchase of sandbagging equipment.
Document floodfighting strategies, including .adding procedure
Assess impact of 100 year flood
N
for gathering and evaluating river gauge data
Structural
Structural improvements to allow closing of storm sewers
Assess technical feasibility of sandbagging
Y
(Urbandale)
overpasses, possibility of using sandbag
alternatives
Modification of bridges which would be inundated in a 100 year
Obtain accurate elevation data for all bridges,
Y
flood
deck and beam
Assess existing bridges/consider design standards for future
Obtain accurate elevation data for all bridges,
bridges to reduce backwater effects
deck and beam
Page 1 of 2 1112105
Replacing infrastructure to a higher standard
BWL, Riverwalk
Y
Levees to prevent minor/moderate flooding (Lindberg Drive
Assess im act on floodwa
Repair/Replace Drain Street bridge to allow emergency egress
from Potter Park zoo in flood conditions
Apply for PDM grant funding to get assessment
done to determine whether to repair or replace
Y
Assess drains for debris, vegetation, sedimentation
County Drain Commissioner
Perform flood audit of public facilities in 500 year flood plain
Do public buildings need/have flood insurance?
Natural Resources
Erosion control - Remove trees on slope of Grand River
Identify scope and cost, identify any homes at
risk
Erosion control - Assess changes to vegetation in floodplain
Testing underway of grass prairie along Red
Cedar
Redesign zoo exhibits to minimize damage from flooding and
release of fecal matter to river in flood conditions
Study underway
Property Protection
Participation in the NFIP Community Rating System in order to
reduce homeowner flood insurance rates
Assess first steps, workload vs. benefit to
homeowners
N
Target floodplain businesses for business continuity and flood
action plans
Identify businesses
N
Provide subsidies to improve homes to post -FIRM standards
Identify available federal funding (address
through Housing Taskforce?
Y
Risk Communication
Revise and redistribute city's "Plain Facts about Flooding"
brochure
Obtain data from FA IR flood survey
N
Require landlords to disclose flood information to renters
Address through city Housing Taskforce
N
Provide education for local insurance agents regarding NFIP
List of insurance agents, identify available
materials/resources
N
Public access to online GIS moo showing flood maps
Si ns in the flood lain showing BFE/historic flood levels
Flood damage assessment drill in Urbandale
Tentatively planned for Summer 2005
Page 2 of 2 1112105
Pntpntial Flnnrl Mitinntinn Prnipr_tc
Project I Next Ste --FType
High Investment Grant + Engineering Analysis
Required)
Add flood water storage in Crego Park area
Determine scope of project, assess environmental
Preventive
and/or old BWL sludge pond
impact of using Cre o Park area
Structural improvements to allow closing of
Assess technical feasibility of sandbagging
Structural
storm sewers (Urbandale)
overpasses, possibility of using sandbag
alternatives; offsite impacts
Berm/floodwall at I RMC Greenlawn
Assess impact on offsite flood levels
Structural
Modification of bridges which would be
Need based on bridge assessment
Structural
inundated in a 100 year flood
Floodproofing or relocation of critical facilities
Need based on critical facilities assessment
Property Protection
in the 500y flood lain
High Investment Additional Funding Re wired
Acquisition of high risk structures on Red
Identify homes, rental or owner occupied,
Preventive
Cedar in Urbandale
approximate value
Acquisition of structures in floodway
Need based on flood lain inventory
Preventive
Replacinci infrastructure to a higher standard
BWL, other utility, Riverwalk
Structural
Repair/Replace Dakin Street bridge to allow
Waiting for determination on maintenance
Structural
emergency egress from Potter Park zoo in
responsibility
flood conditions
Possible C I P
Erosion control - Remove trees on slope of
Identify scope and cost, identify any homes at risk
Natural Resources
Grand River
Provide subsidies to improve homes to post-
Identify available federal funding (address
Property Protection
FIRM standards
through Housing Taskforce?
Page 1 of 4 219105
Pro'ect Next Step Type
Moderate Investment Additional funding
ay be required)
Update of FIRM maps (Cooperative Technical
Working with FEMA (and Ingham Co?) on CTP
Info/Warning
Partnership), including development of flood
sta a forecast ma
Assess existing bridges for potential backwater
Obtain accurate elevation data for all bridges,
Structural
effects
deck and beam
Assess drains for debris, vegetation,
County Drain Commissioner
Structural
sedimentation
Assess vulnerability of critical facilities in 500
Floodplain inventory
Property Protection
year flood plain, make recommendations for
floodproofing or relocation
Participation in the NFIP Community Rating
Assess first steps, workload vs. benefit to
Property Protection
System in order to reduce homeowner flood
homeowners
insurance rates
Provide education for local insurance agents
List of insurance agents, identify available
Risk Communication
regarding NFIP
materials/resources
Public access to online GIS maps showing
Risk Communication
flood maps
Signs in the floodplain showing BFE/historic
Risk Communication
flood levels
Page 2 of 4 219105
Pro'ect Next Step Type
Low Investment Commitment of existinq resources
Flooded road gauges and other flood warning
Location? Permanent or temporary?
Info/Warning
signs
Pre -disaster planning of temporary flood
Determine what would be needed in 100 year
Emergency
barriers (type and location)
flood. Consider sandbag alternatives, or purchase
Response
of sandbagging equipment.
Document floodfighting strategies, including
Assess impact of 100 year flood
Emergency
adding procedure for gathering and evaluating
Response
river gauge data
Target floodplain businesses for business
Identify businesses
Property Protection
continuity and flood action plans
Revise and redistribute city's "Plain Facts about
Obtain data from FAIR flood survey
Risk Communication
Flooding" brochure
Require landlords to disclose flood information
Address through city Housing Taskforce
Risk Communication
to renters
Integration of flood planning considerations
Location of critical facilities, bridge design criteria
Preventive
into master plan and departmental procedures
Using control of existing dams to maintain
Study needed?
Preventive
rivers at lower levels
Longterm(Planning Considerations
Relocate or floodproof critical facilities in 500
year flood lain
Identify facilities, assess means of protection
Preventive
Page 3 of 4 219105
Pro'ect Next Ste T e
Already Underway
Additional flood gauges
Included in Public Service weather promect
Info/Warnin
Flood damage assessment drill in Urbandale
Tentatively planned for Spring 2006
Emergency
IResponse
Erosion control - Assess changes to vegetation
Testing underway of grass prairie along Red
Natural Resources
in flood lain
Cedar
Redesign zoo exhibits to minimize damage
Study underway
Natural Resources
from flooding and release of fecal matter to
river in flood conditions
Development of comprehensive floodplain
Underway
ALL
inventor
Page 4 of 4 219105
Dntcantial �'Innrl 11/litinatinn Drninrtc
Pro'ect Next Step Type
High Investment Grant + Engineerinq Anal
sis Required)
Add flood water storage in Crego Park area
Determine scope of project with Corps of
Preventive
and/or old BWL sludge pond
Engineers, assess environmental impact of using
Cre o Park area
Structural improvements to allow closing of
Assess technical feasibility of sandbagging
Structural
storm sewers (Urbandale)
overpasses, possibility of using sandbag
alternatives; offsite impacts
Levee/floodwall at Ingham Regional Medical
Assess impact on offsite flood levels
Structural
Center Greenlawn Campus
High Investment Additional Fundin Re wired
Acquisition of structures in the floodway or
[Floodplain Inventory] Identify homes, rental or
Preventive
high risk structures in the flood fringe
owner occupied, approximate value
Repair/Replace Dakin Street bridge to allow
Waiting for determination on maintenance
Structural
emergency egress from Potter Park zoo in
responsibility. Not fundable through mitigation
flood conditions
grants.
Replacing infrastructure to a higher standard
[Floodplain Inventory] BWL, other utility,
Structural
Riverwalk
Provide subsidies to improve homes to post-
Mitigation grant funded, seek additional donations
Property Protection
FIRM standards
from area builders, have homeowners pay 25%
local match
Page 1 of 4 314105
r
Pro'ect Next Step Type
Moderate Investment Additional funding
ay be required)
Update of FIRM maps (Cooperative Technical
Working with FEMA (and Ingham Co?) on map
Info/Warning
Partnership), including development of flood
modernization
stage forecast ma
Permanently lower (open) gates at North
Identify scope of study needed (if any) with
Preventive
Lansing Dam to drop river level 4' in city
MDEQ, MDNR and USGS to determine effects on
other rivers. Assess effects on infrastructure and
benefits to recreation and river health.
Bank stabilization
Identify scope and cost (trees to remove,
Natural Resources
recommended landscaping), identify any homes at
risk
Assess drains for debris, vegetation,
County Drain Commissioner
Structural
sedimentation
Assess vulnerability of critical facilities in 500
[Floodplain Inventory]
Property Protection
year flood plain, make recommendations for
floodproofing or relocation
Additional flood gauges in Eaton & Ingham
Add non -reporting gauges on Grand River in
I nfo/Warning
counties to improve forecasting
Eaton County, reporting rain gauges on Grand in
Eaton County and on Red Cedar in Ingham
Count
Provide education for local insurance agents,
List of trade associations, identify available
Risk Communication
realtors and mortgage lenders regarding NFIP
materials/resources
Modification of bridges which would be
[Floodplain Inventory] Need based on bridge
Structural
inundated in a 100 year flood
I assessment
Page 2 of 4 314105
Pro'ect Next Step Type
Low Investment Commitment of existingresources
Participation in the NFIP Community Rating
Contact ISO to apply, research qualifying projects
Property Protection
System in order to reduce homeowner flood
insurance rates
Emergency Response Planning
• Document current flood fight strategies,
Emergency
including procedures for gathering and
Response
evaluating river gauge data
• Pre -plan type and location of temporary flood
barriers, consider purchase of sandbagging
equipment or sandbag alternatives
• Consider flooded road gauges and other flood
Info/Warning
warning signs
Target floodplain businesses for business
[Floodplain Inventory] Identify businesses and
Property Protection
continuity and flood action plans
available materials
Public Outreach
• Develop and/or distribute floodplain materials
Risk Communication
• Create "floodplain libraries" at neighborhood
centers and Foster Community Center
• Flood website including online GIS mapping
Require landlords to disclose flood information
Address through city Housing Taskforce
Risk Communication
to renters or provide flood insurance contents
coverage for renters' belongings
Longterm(Planning Considerations
Integration of flood planning considerations
into master plan and departmental procedures
Location of critical facilities, bridge design criteria
Preventive
Page 3 of 4 314105
Pro'ect Next Step Type
Already Underway
Additional flood gauges in city
Included in Public Service weather project
Info/Warnin
Flood damage assessment drill in Urbandale
Tentatively planned for Spring 2006
Emergency
Response
Bank stabilization
Testing underway of grass prairie along Red
Natural Resources
Cedar
Redesign zoo exhibits to minimize damage
Study underway
Natural Resources
from flooding and release of fecal matter to
river in flood conditions
Development of comprehensive floodplain
• Floodway and flood fringe structures
ALL
inventory
• Critical facilities
• Bridge beam and deck elevations
• Private water and septic sstems
Page 4 of 4 314105
ps"'�,,Tree
Li
Grand River - Lansing (Eaton County) Q
Cooley Dr
�a
NN Cambridge Rd
102
erg
o'Rd-
Be la r
fir}
Grand River - South Lansing 'lah-
Grand River - Moores River Drive
EN
William St
W Vljashtendw St
E
AdleganSt
0
a
JJ
�
♦V
C
� � � ..mot.-...-..�
J
Z
arnard
ERA
L �
c
Grand River at Red Cedar River -0`
oPG �qce
a
ss cn
x
0(,� y
SCL
a?a
in
c6 Russell St
rn
co
v�
W R ason rSt
I a I Mah..
ZEM'.
E
E Th mas t y
U�
z R.
--, Wojbdbury Ave
q �f.
E North St
q Beav r St
t �
�._ - ~ earl St
Fir �y,r
GI ton S#
Libe St
E G and RiveAve
}
E Mapl a St
Ole
- dams
Ash St
- ,
Mor roe St
adiso`
May St
Chooicraft t
c
Erie St
-
I 1
3
Eiafira+n�assee St
4
cc
='E
Z
Z
Ionia S
�.
Grand River - Downtown
�'`
Grand River - Tecumseh River Drive
| //190
b city kk
\�
«,eJ ka a S u&ell N
/ :H I / @
w » »
2 2 oMUAO
\
/ \Mi~%¥S\. )
.�, . .:..... a
y
m�\ g .
<��:\°
}L
$ry
�
Haz
Red Cedar River - Baker/Donora Q
Red Cedar River - Aurelius/Mt. Hope
J
?-
r alle dns
o
z'
Lasalle
Blvd
#4
5
.. ®.
rr iwood ve
a..6
cn
n a
a
I27' ;�
ry
II Ct
Oak
Ave
I
Red Cedar River - Frandor
77
r
u� r
ckirn P ve it
Cenwo d Ave
p
Riley t
Cu
Edison P ve
{
Tisdale Ave
o
L Lincoln A ve >
E Green le wn Ave
Health Care Dr
E Willard Ave
v_ Hamelor
v
(n
Q 'o-
Robinsor
CO CD
-v Hoyt Ave
CIO
m N
N ON
3 �0Z NO
ZK
a 3
Wab
4.
�
5� - Provmct r
ington Ave
fi q
p L
�a ^� �"s�'S �•`� '� fit: a�,� �a� � - �, -. � - , � ;'¢ _
nnwo Drs n �h � > Rex St
4INNS Luwanna
Sycamore Creek - IRMC Penn Q
Dr
> Rex St
h Luwanna 7r
:3
Lourdes Ct c
O
P.7
vi
� W
=v h
" rF
A
i rer
LLB.
orb
r
ensen St
Av
St
t
E Jolly Rd
(D
�- It
`< i
Q i
r
e ,
Sycamore Creek - Jolly/Aurelius
erns a
k BL
Dr
7
Dr
�eys�e�e Pie
O
Dell
r
Pawlowski Creek - South Lansing Q
Sycamore Creek - South Lansing
•
•
Available June 2005
n
Project
Next Step
Status
HE1
Add Floodwater Storage
Preliminary Meeting 4/25/05
Investigating
Full Workgroup Meeting after
contact w Cor s of Engineers
HE1A
Urbandale Protective Actions
Same as HE1
Investi atin
HE2
IRMC Protective Actions
Same as HE1
Investi atin
HE3
Museum Drive Protective Actions
Meeting 4/29 05 (postponed)
Investigating
HA1
Subsidizing retrofit of private
[Floodplain Inventory]
Investigating
homes to Post -FIRM standards
HA2
Property Acquisition
[Floodplain Inventory] No more
Future
Parks property can be acquired
at this time
HA3
Dakin Street Bridge
City Attorney reviewing railroad
Investigating
Repair/Replacement
agreement
HA4
Replacement of infrastructure to a
[Floodplain Inventory]
Future
higher standard
M1
Update of Flood Insurance Rate
FEMA, DEQ contacted; waiting
Preparing
Maps (Cooperative Technical
for FEMA to schedule scoping
Partnership)
meeting
M2
Lower River Level
Test tentatively scheduled 8/05
Investigating
Next meeting 5/11/05
M3
Bank Stabilization
Investigating
M4
Additional Flood Gauges
Meeting 5 23 05
Investigating
M5
Drains
Future
M6
Assess Critical Infrastructure
(Floodplain Invento
Future
M7
Education for Insurance, Mortgage
Future
and Real Estate Professionals
LI1
Participation in Community Rating
Workgroup formed, FEMA
Preparing
System
contacted waiting for FEMA visit
LI2
Emergency Planning and
[Floodplain Inventory]
Preparing
Documentation of Flood -Fight
Strategies
LI3
Business Continuity Planning for
Include as part of 1 day business
Preparing
Small Businesses in Floodplain
continuity conference under
homeland security rant
LI4
Public Education Program
Meeting 5/10/05
Underway
LI5
Disclosure Requirement for
Investigating
Landlords in Floodplain
LT1
Integration of Foodplain
Underway
considerations into master plan
and departmental procedures
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskforce
51912005
Project Type; Preventive
Workgroup agencies
Lansing Board of Water & Light
Parks & Recreation Dept
Public Service Dept
Planning Dept
Computer & Communication Services Dept
Lansing Emergency Management Office
Ingham County Emergency Management
Ingham County Drain Commissioner
Lansing Township
City of East Lansing
Michigan State University
Ingham Regional Medical Center
US Army Corps of Engineers
National Weather Service
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Overview
Through landscaping, an area or areas would be created along the Red Cedar to divert
some floodwater from populated areas. Places that could potentially be used are Crego
Park or the cleaned up portion of the Board of Water and Light sludge pond. The BWL
site is 40 acres, five of which are currently available.
This project could be combined with HEIA and/or HE2 to provide even greater flood
protection for the Urbandale area or Ingham Regional Medical Center.
Next steps:
• Complete floodplai.n.inventory
• Contact Corps of Engineers to determine the scope of the study needed to
determine effectiveness
• Identify funding for study (possibilities include: Corps of Engineers, mitigation grant,
technical assistance from DEQ)
• Assess potential sites for environmental concerns, identify other potential sites
• Perform study (model with and without additional protective actions for Urbandale)
• Perform cost/benefit analysis
• Determine design for retention area
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskforce
Cost
Study: If the project is accepted by the Corps of Engineers, they will pay $100,000
toward a project study. Any cost over $100,000 would be 50% local/federal match.
Project: 65% Federal, 30% Local soft -match, 5% Local cash
There are numerous stakeholders in this project. Local costs must be shared among the
stakeholders to make the project feasible.
Benefit
Diverting floodwater from the Red Cedar will benefit areas in Lansing, East Lansing,
Lansing Township, and at Michigan State University. The greatest benefit will probably
be to neighborhoods on the Red Cedar, but flooding should also be lessened in
neighborhoods on the Grand and Sycamore Creek.
An engineering study is needed to determine the full benefit of this project. The goal is
to divert enough water that some structures will no longer be in the floodplain, and that
others will be affected to a lesser degree.
In Lansing, areas that we hope to benefit include: Urbandale, Potter Park area, Baker-
Donora Neighborhood, Frandor Shopping Center, and Ingham Regional Medical Center
Pennsylvania Campus, which is located on Sycamore Creek about a mile from the
confluence with the Red Cedar.
Indirect benefits to stakeholders include higher property values, improved quality of life,
and increased public safety.
Concerns
• Crego Park may be an identified wetland, which may require additional impact.
studies
• Cash cost
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskforce
Project Type; Preventive
Workgroup agencies
Lansing Board of Water & Light
Parks & Recreation Dept
Public Service Dept
Planning Dept
Computer & Communication Services Dept
Lansing Emergency Management Office
Ingham County Emergency Management
Ingham County Drain Commissioner
Lansing Township
City of East Lansing
Michigan State University
Ingham Regional Medical Center
US Army Corps of Engineers
National Weather Service
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Overview
US-127 and 496 act as a dike around Urbandale during minor flooding. During
moderate and major floods water comes into the area through storm sewers and
through the underpasses at Michigan Avenue and Kalamazoo Street.
Sandbags or similar materials at the underpasses, combined with a system of gates or
bladders to close storm sewers, could complete the "dike" and protect Urbandale in
larger floods.
Issues to consider
• Water diverted from Urbandale would increase flooding elsewhere, unless sufficient
additional storage space was created (HE1)
• Cost may be prohibitive, depending on the number and means of storm sewers
closed
Next step
Engineering studies and other information gathering activities for HE1 will include this
project as an option.
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskforce
f�
Project Type; Preventive
Workgroup agencies
IRMC
Public Service
Emergency Management
National Weather Service
Corps of Engineers
MDEQ
Overview
Ingham Regional Medical Center (IRMC) Pennsylvania campus is located in the 100-year
floodplain on Sycamore Creek. Methods being considered to protect the facility include
a levee, flood walls, and flood -proofing the affected portion of the building itself.
Issues to consider
To what extent can flooding be prevented at the hospital without creating an adverse
impact at another site (for example: it may be able to be protected in a 10 year flood,
but not a 100 year flood). The extent to which a hospital is allowed to flood -proof under
,r NFIP.
Next step
Contact Corps of Engineers to determine the scope of the study needed to determine
effectiveness. Investigate methods used by Amway Corp in Grand Rapids in a similar
situation.
Lansing flood Mitigation Taskforce
Project Type; Preventive
Workgroup agencies
Delta Twp Emergency Management
Economic Development Corporation
Lansing Board of Water & Light
Lansing Emergency Management Office
Lansing Parks & Recreation Dept
Lansing Planning Dept
Lansing Public Service Dept
LPD Dive Team
MDEQ
MDNR
MSU Limnological Research
National Weather Service
Principal Shopping District
US Fish & Wildlife Agency
USGS
Woldumar Nature Center
Overview
The level of the Grand River in the city can be lowered by opgriing, modifying or
removing the North Lansing Dam.
The expected result would be that the level of the river would drop about four feet in
the city, it would run faster, and it would be narrower in its banks.
Cost
The Corps of Engineers study commissioned by EDC in 2004 estimated the cost of
modifying the dam at $166,000. That figure assumed that the work would be done by
the Corps, which is unlikely. The cost of having the work done by another party is
estimated to be between $250,000 and $500,000 dollars.
Potential associated costs may include:
• Removing debris from the river (including concrete, rebar, branches, and other large
items)
• Altering affected boat launches
• Erosion control at storm sewer outfalls
• Landscaping newly created banks
r • Studying bridge piers and abutments for potential scour
-� • Clean up of contaminated sediments
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskfoxe 4122105
/1- . Hydraulic analysis
• Channel design
This project, including associated costs, will be considered for funding under the federal
appropriation for river improvements which has been requested by EDC through
Congressman Rogers.
Benefits
Flood Mitigation
Lowering the river would allow the Grand to take in additional flood water from the Red
Cedar and Sycamore Creek, potentially improving flood conditions along all three rivers
in minor and moderate floods. It is not anticipated that there would be an appreciable
difference in a 100-year flood.
River Health
The increased rate of flow would improve the health of the river by lowering
temperatures and increasing levels of dissolved oxygen between the Moore's Park and
North Lansing dams.
The fish ladder at the dam would still be usable if the gates were opened. Removing
the dam would have the additional benefits of allowing greater mobility of fish and
wildlife in the river.
Recreation
Improving the river as a habitat will also improve fishing. Sections of the River Trail
which are now underwater for part of the year would be accessible year-round.
Modifying or removing the dam would allow boats to move through the area.
Project design could include additional recreational features, such as artificial rapids.
Concerns
• Smell and appearance of river when it is first lowered (smell would only be
noticeable at the river)
• Affect on shallower portions of the Grand River
• Potential impact on Red Cedar and Sycamore Creek
• Potential impact outside of the city
• Keeping newly created bank space free of obstructions
• Sediment contamination behind the dam
• Tri-County Riverfest scheduled August 20
Next Steps
The Board of Water and Light will obtain the information
temporary permit, allowing us to test lowering the dam.
needed to apply for a
The target date for the test is
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskforce
4122105
August 2005. If the permit cannot be obtained in time, the test will be held in August
2006.
August is typically the month of lowest flow, which will minimize sediment transport.
Testing in the fall would potentially interfere with fish migration; lowering the river in
the winter could cause excess ice formation, leading to fish kill; testing any earlier in
the summer would interfere with activities on the river, such as Common Ground. The
August test may impact the Tri-County Riverfest, which is scheduled for August 20"'.
The outcome of the test will help determine whether this project should be pursued,
although a short-term, low flow test is not likely to change the contour of the river as
the permanent lowering would. Information gathered during the test will be used to
apply for a permanent permit if the project goes forward.
The next meeting for this workgroup will be Wednesday, May 11 at 2:00 in the
Lansing EOC (location may change). Specific objectives for the August test will be
discussed at that meeting.
Lansing Flood Mitigarion Taskforce 4122105
Project Type; Information/Warning
Workgroup Agencies
Eaton County Emergency Management
Ingham County Emergency Management
_ Lansing Emergency Management
Lansing 4Public Service Dept
National Weather Service
US Geological Survey
Overview
Already underwayAdditional river gauges will be installed within the next three years
as part of a joint Public Service and Transportation project. This will give us a much
better ability to monitor flood conditions in the city. This portion of the project is
already 100% funded.
Proposed additional action: Gauges should also be added outside the city to improve
flood forecasting, and existing gauges inside the city should be supplemented.
• Wire weight gauges (non -reporting) on the Grand in Eaton County
• Rain gauges (reporting) on the Grand in Eaton County and the Red Cedar in Ingham
County
• Staff gauges added at reporting gauge sites for greater accessibility
• Staff gauges added at public access sites with signage to promote flood awareness
• Staff gauge on Museum Drive to promote flood awareness and allow monitoring by
business owners
• Reinstatement of Mount Hope gauge on Sycamore creek as a reporting gauge
Reporting gauges send data automatically to the National Weather Service in Grand
Rapids. Non -reporting gauges must be read locally and information submitted to NWS
(see Project LI2: Emergency Planning and Documentation of Flood -fight Strategies).
The rain gauges being proposed for the Eaton and Ingham County sites would report
under the system already in place at those sites, at no additional cost. (Is Eaton Rapids
currently reporting?)
Gauges would be purchased and installed in cooperation with the two county
emergency management offices.
The final portion of the project will be to assess the possibility of having the wire weight
gauges in Eaton County and the new gauges installed in the city report to the USGS
and the National Weather Service.
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskfone
Cost
Tipping bucket rain gauge...............................................................................$500.00
Wire -weight gauge............................................................................... $1,500 to 2,000
Reporting ability for wire -weight gauges (annually)...........................................$10,000
These costs do not include installation, which would be performed by the jurisdiction in
which the gauges are placed. Installation costs may be allowable under mitigation
grants.
Benefit
• Increase the information being provided to the National Weather Service, improving
flood forecasting
• Improve the city's ability to monitor flood conditions, including flash flooding
• Raise public awareness of flood potential
• Engage public and business owners in flood monitoring
Next steps
Identify locations for gauges; determine who will be responsible for installation;
determine feasibility of having gauges report; apply for mitigation grant funding.
Grand I
Bridge
Dimon
Gn
Kni
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskfonce
9
Project Type; Property Protection
Workgroup agencies
Lansing Emergency Management
Planning Department
Computer & Communication Services
_.-Public_Service
Parks & Recreation
Overview
The Community Rating System is part of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Participating communities are credited for specific mitigation and preparedness activities
and flood insurance rates for residents are reduced accordingly.
Min Pts
Class
Rate
Reduction
4500
1
45%
4000
2
40%
3500
3
35%
3000
4
30%
2500
5
25%
2000
6
20%
1500
7
15%
1000
8
10%
500
110
9
5%
0
10
Because of statewide floodplain management policies,
proving NFIP compliance will earn an automatic 5% rate
reduction. Additional points will be earned by
implementing the projects described in this plan. It is our
goal to reach a classification of 8 (on a scale of 10-1) by
2007, which will earn a 10% rate reduction.
Points in the program are difficult to earn. Only one
community in the country has reached class two, and
only two have reached class four.
Our proposed five year goal is to reach a. class six, which
will result in a 20% reduction.
Participation in CRS will provide a means of ensuring ongoing NFIP compliance, and for
monitoring and gauging success of mitigation overall.
Timeline
2005
• Community Assistance visit by FEMA to verify NFIP Compliance
• Document qualifying projects
• Submit application
• Verification visit
2006
Achieve CRS Class 9
• Implement and document new qualifying projects
• Apply for additional credits
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskfoiw
�J
'J
11 - Public Information
310 - Elevation Certificates
Average
Points
72
Expected
Points
Lead
Sue . --
320 - Map Information
138
Sue
330 - Outreach Projects
80
Ronda
340 - Hazard Disclosure
21
Sue
350 - Flood Protection Information
22
Ronda
360 - Flood Protection Assistance
410 - Additional Flood Information
57
56
Sue
Sam
420 - Open Space Preservation
113
Paul
430 - Higher Regulatory Standards
100
Sue
440 - Flood Data Maintenance
66
Sam
450 - Stormwater Management
500 - Flood Damage Reduction Activities
105
79
Jim
Ronda
510 - Floodplain Management Planning
520 - Acquisition and Relocation
140
Ronda
530 - Flood Protection
43
Sue
540 - Drainage System Maintenance
600 - Flood Preparedness Activities
610 - Flood Warning Program
261
101
Jim
Ronda
620 - Levee Safety
154 '
Jim
630 - Dam Safety
Total
66
1674
00
Ronda
Lansing Flood Midgadon Taskforce
Project Type; Risk Communication
Workgroup agencies
Lansing Emergency Management
Planning Department
Allen Neighborhood Center
Overview
An Outreach Strategy Team has been formed to:
1. Determine goals and objectives of the public education program
2. Identify projects that meet goals
3. Identify means of evaluating effectiveness of specific projects
4. Implement projects
5. Review goals and objectives, evaluate effectiveness of projects
The strategy team will include at least one representative from floodplain
neighborhoods.
Outreach Goals
• Reduce the impact of flooding (protect life and property) by:
- Raising awareness of the flood hazard
- Encouraging residents to prepare for flooding
- Encouraging residents to purchase flood insurance
• Keep neighborhoods strong and intact
- Involving neighborhoods in mitigation and preparedness activities
- Encouraging residents to participate in mitigation projects in their neighborhoods
• Encourage the preservation and restoration of natural resources
• Lower flood insurance rates by developing outreach projects based on Community
Rating System guidelines
CRS Creditable Outreach Topics
Local Flood Hazard
Flood Safety
Flood Insurance
Property Protection Measures
Natural and Beneficial Functions
Map of Local Flood Hazard
Flood Warning Systems
Floodplain Development Permit Requirements
Substantial Improvement/Damage Requirements
Drainage System Maintenance
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskforce
.x 10
-�, 2005 Objectives
i 1. Engage neighborhoods, businesses, and local media to develop meaningful and
appropriate messages.
2. 100% of residents and business owners in the floodplain will be advised at least
once that they are in the floodplain.
3. 100% of residents and business owners in the floodplain will receive information at
least. once regarding the advisability of flood insurance.
-4. _ Resources highlighting the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains and flood
preparedness will be made available to Neighborhood Network Centers serving
floodplain residents (Allen Neighborhood Center, North Network Center, Baker-
Donora Focus Center, and Capital Area District Library Foster Branch).
5. Business Continuity planning assistance will be offered to 100% of small businesses
in the floodplain.
Projects
Projects will include outreach to the whole community, and outreach specifically to
floodplain residents.
• Flood reference libraries at Capital Area District Library Foster Branch, Allen
Neighborhood Center, North Network Center, and Baker-Donora Focus Center
• Development of resources highlighting the natural and beneficial functions of
floodplains.
• Urbandale Health & Safety Information Fair
• Mailing to all floodplain residents giving basic flood hazard and insurance
information
• Business continuity planning program targeting floodplain businesses
• Public access to floodplain map from the City website
Lansing Flood Mitigation Taskforce