HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-08 Drainage and Flooding Committee Minutes
2
MINUTES OF THE DRAINAGE AND FLOODING COMMITTEE
June 23, 2008
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Mosteit at 5:00 p.m.
Committee Members Present:
Council Members: Chairman Mike Mosteit, Vice Chairman Mike Clausen, Committee Members
Chuck Engelken, and Tommy Moser.
Committee Members Absent: Howard Ebow
Other Council members Present: None
Members of City Employees Present: Assistant City Secretary Sharon Harris, City Manager Ron
Bottoms, Director of Public Works Steve Giilett, Director of Planning and Zoning Tim Tietjens,
Assistant City Manager John Joems, Emergency Management Assistant Kristin Gauthier and
City Engineer Rodney Slaton
Others present: Michelle Patton (Project Manager of Klotz and Associates), John Saavedra,
Phillip Hoot, Jorge Gutierrez, Brad Brann, Richard and Ellen Winn, Kirby and Betty Cardenas,
Bob Klassen, Un Pfeiffer, Cheryl Westmoreland, Charles Nutt, Patricia Clark, Charles
Rothmund, David Janda, Margaret Compton and other citizens.
2. Consider approval of Minutes of Drainage and Flooding Committee Meeting held May 12, 2008.
Motion was made by Committee member Engelken to approve the minutes as presented. A
second by Committee Member Clausen. The motion carried.
Ayes: Tommy Moser, Mike Mosteit, Mike Clausen, and Chuck Engelken
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Howard Ebow
3. Petitions, Remonstrance's, communications, and citizens and taxpayers wishing to address the
Drainage and Flooding Committee.
There were not any citizens wishing to address the Drainage and Flooding Committee.
4. Receive update from staff on Creekmont Park Drainage and Overflow Path Short Term Project
Two.
Drainage and Flooding Committee Meeting - June 23, 2008
Page 2
Director of Public Works Steve Gillett and Project Manager Michelle Patton with Klotz and
Associates provided an update on Creekmont Park Drainage and Overflow Path Short Term
Project Two.
The three Alternatives and Cost Estimates were discussed for Creekmont Subdivision Section
Two.
It was recommended not to move forward with short term project solutions at this time.
The Drainage and Flooding Committee Members had the following questions.
Committee member Engelken questioned the number of homes flooded in the Creekmont
Subdivision and if some of the projects could possibly be funded by FEMA.
Committee member Moser had question on the ditch at North H Street.
Ms. Patton advised Alternative Two would be the most effective for all three of the alternatives
analyzed.
5. Receive status report from staff for City-Wide Drainage Plan.
Ms. Patton reported progress is being made on the City-Wide Drainage Plan and funding
information received will be evaluated. Ms. Patton also reported F101 Project is also being
evaluated.
Committee member Engelken inquired if staff had an opportunity to look at the draft report from
the University of New Orleans and evaluate if it would be a benefit to overall subdivisions in La
Porte. Ms. Patton will confirm the status of the report with Gary Struzick. Mr. Engelken also
questioned if watersheds outside the city were being observed.
Committee member Moser inquired what other projects are being considered.
Ms. Patton reported B 101 and A 104 are the next projects to be worked on.
Chairman Mosteit reported he would like to meet with Commissioner Garcia in the near future to
discuss downstream effects on the City of La Porte.
6. Administrative Reports.
Receive reports from City Staff, Harris County Flood Control District and Harris County
Precinct Two regarding city drainage issues.
Director of Public Works reported on routine drainage maintenance being performed by
the City. Mr. Gillett also reported Harris County Flood Control District (John Randolph not
present) is working at Little Cedar Bayou on selective clearing and de-snagging of the
channels will also be performed.
Drainage and Flooding Committee Meeting - June 23, 2008
Page 3
John Saavedra with Harris County Precinct Two reported the design of the Valleybrook
Project was approved. The next step is to send out a bid package and award to a
contractor. He also reported surveyors were out at the 600 1000 blocks of East Main
Street.
Committee Member Moser advised Mr. Saavedra of flooding on Barbours Cut. Mr.
Saavedra will also have Barbous Cut surveyed.
Chairman Mosteit requested staff advise Mr. Randolph with Harris County Flood Control
District to provide a status report on the F101 Project.
7. Set date for next meeting.
The Drainage and Flooding Committee set the next meeting date for September 15, 2008 at
5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
The committee requested staff to add Receive Reports and/or Administrative Reports from the
Drainage and Flooding Committee on the next City Council Meetings in order to discuss
drainage issues as reports are received.
8. Committee Comments.
The committee had comments
9. Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at
5:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~WtYL~
Sharon Harris, TRMC
Assistant City Secretary
/Yh<J!:l!J) t~~tctober 2008.
Chairperson Mike Mosteit
4
5
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis #7
City of La Porte, Texas · Brookglen Subdivision
Date
University of New Orleans Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology
www.floodheID.uno.edu
SUPPORTED BY FEMA
Terminology
Area Analysis: An approach to identify repetitive flood loss areas, evaluate mitigation
approaches, and determine the most appropriate alternatives to reduce future repetitive flood
losses.
BFE: Base Flood Elevation: The elevation of the crest of the base flood or 100- year
flood.
CHART: Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology at the University
of New Orleans
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM: Flood Insurance Rate Map
Floodway: The channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be
kept free of encroachment so that the I-percent flood can be carried without substantial increases
in flood heights
Freeboard: A factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes
of floodplain management.
GIS: Geographic Information Systems
Hazard Mitigation: Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to
life and property from a hazard event
HCFCD: Harris County Flood Control District
ICC: Increased Cost of Compliance
NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program
Repetitive Flood Loss (RL): An NFIP-insured property where two or more claim
payments of more than $1,000 have been paid within a 10-year period since 1978.
Severe Repetitive Flood Loss Properties (SRL): As defined by the Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2004, 1-4 family residences that have had four or more claims of more than $5,000
or two claims that cumulatively exceed the reported building's value. The Act creates new funding
mechanisms to help mitigate flood damage for these properties.
Substantial bnprovement: The repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure,
the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure either, (1) before the
improvement or repair is started, or (2) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored,
before the damage occurred
Table of Contents
Ba ckground ................................................. ........ ............................................. ...... ................1
The Process ............... .......... .............. .............................. ......................................................2
Prel i m i na ry Step: Select the Area ............................................................................ .............3
Step 1: Advise the Homeowners ........ ............................. .......... ......... ............................. ......5
Step 2: Data Collection ................................................................................................. .........5
I. Mitigation Plans .............................................................................................................6
II. Flood I nsura nce Data............ .............. ...........................................................................7
III. Dra i nage Information........................ ................................................................. ..........9
IV. Flooding Expe riences of Homeowners...................................................................... ...12
V. On-Site Data Collection................................................................................................ .14
Problem Statement..................................................... ................................... .................. .15
Ste p 3: Mitigation Measures ........... .................................... ................................... .............. .16
I. Dra i nage Improvements.............. ......................... ...... .................................... ............... .16
II. Acq uisition ................ ............................ .................................................... ............. ....... .17
III. Elevation..................... ................................................................................................. .18
IV. Ba rri ers to Flood Waters ....................................... .................................................... ...19
V. Dry Flood proofi ng ........................................................................................... ..... ........ .21
VI. Development Regulations that Reduce Flood Risk......................................................23
VII. Flood Insurance............................................................................................. ............. .24
VIII. Fu nd ing for Mitigation Projects ................... ........ ........................................ ............ ..26
Step 4: Coordination ......... ........ ...... ........ ........................... ......... ....... ............ ........................27
Ste p 5: Fi ndi ngs and Recom mendations .......................... ..................... .................... ......... ...28
I. Fi ndings.................................................................................................... ..... ................. .28
II. Recom m endations........................................................................................................ .29
Appendix A: Letter from the City ...........................................................................................31
Appen dix B: Residents Data Sheet..................... ................ .......... ..........................................32
Appen dix C: Mitigation Fu n ding............................................................................................33
list of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1-1 City of La Porte 4
Figure 1-2 Repetitive Flood Loss Analysis Area 5
Figure 1-3 A Typical Brookglen Home 3
Figure 2-1 Analysis Area Flood Zones 7
Figure 2-2 West Plantation Ditch 10
Figure 2-3 Willow Springs Bayou 10
Figure 2-4 Willow Springs Bayou 10
Figure 2-5 Willow Springs Bayou - South of Fairmont Pkwy. 10
Figure 2-6 1993 Drainage Project Area 11
Figure 2-7 Spencer Highway, 2008 14
Figure 3-1 Sheet Flow Path 17
Figure 3-2 An Elevated Slab House 18
Figure 3-3 Floodwall 19
Figure 3-4 I Floodwall 19
Figure 3-5 Soils Map 20
Figure 3-6 Dry Floodproofed House 22
Figu re 3-7 Dry Floodproofed House 23
Figure 3-8 Door Sealant for Dry Floodproofed House 23
Figu re 3-9 Dry Floodproofed Commercial Building 23
Figu re 3-10 I Window Sealant for Dry Floodproofed House 23
list of Tables
I Table Page
Table 2-1 Claims Data for Repetitive Flood Loss Properties in Study Area 8
Table 2-2 Data Sheet Results 13
Table 2-3 Windshield Data 15
Table 3-1 Floodwall Cost Estimate 21
Table 3-2 Example NFIP Flood Insurance Premium 25
Table 3-3 Summary of Alternative Mitigation Measures 26
Acknowledgements:
The compilation of this report was managed by Sarah Markway Stack, MP A, a CHART
Research Associate; Maggie Olivier, a CHART Graduate Research Assistant and a
Masters student in Sociology at the University of New Orleans; and Iman Adeinat a
CHART Graduate Research Assistant and a Doctoral student in Engineering
Management at the University of New Orleans. Contributing to this report were several
City of La Porte offices including the Office of Emergency Management, especially Jeff
Suggs; Drainage Department, GIS Department, La Porte City Council Flood Committee,
specifically Chuck Engelken and Mike Mosteit; the Harris County Flood Control District;
and the Texas State Water Development Board.
For more information regarding this area analysis, contact:
Sarah Markway Stack, MP A
Research Associate, CHART
The University of New Orleans
New Orleans, LA 70148
504.280.1404
smarkway@uno.edu
Repetitive Flood Loss Area Analysis
Brookglen Neighborhood
La Porte, TX
Flooding is a problem far too familiar to many neighborhoods across the United States.
Enduring the consequences of flooding over and over again can be quite frustrating. When the
water rises, life is disrupted, belongings are ruined, and hard-earned money is spent.
This report has been created in collaboration with City of La Porte and Harris County officials,
and the owners of homes in a repetitively flooded area who have continually suffered the
personal losses and stresses associated with living in a flood-prone house. The goal is to help
homeowners reduce their flood risk by providing a broader understanding of the flooding
problems in their neighborhood, and the potential solutions to the continual suffering that results
from repetitive flooding. The availability of possible funding sources for certain mitigation
options is also discussed.
Here, flooding issues and potential mitigation measures are discussed for homes located in the
Brookglen neighborhood of La Porte, TX. Not all mitigation measures are appropriate for all
homes; however, the homes in this study are quite homogeneous and are also representative of
other homes throughout the region.
It is understood that there are many stresses associated with repetitive flooding including worry
about how high the water may rise, the loss of personal belongings, the possibility of mold, and
whether or not neighbors will return after the next event. Adding to this worry is the uncertainty
related to the potential solutions. Should I elevate and if so, how high? Should I pursue a
buyout offer from the County? How much will a mitigation project cost? What will my
neighborhood look like if I am the only one to mitigate, or the only one not to mitigate? Is there
a solution that might work for the entire neighborhood? These questions are common, and this
report attempts to answer them according to the specific situation faced by homeowners in the
Brookglen neighborhood. Informed homeowners can become even stronger advocates for policy
change at the neighborhood, city, county, state and even federal levels. Overall, it is hoped that
by gaining a better understanding of the flooding issues, neighborhoods can become safer and
homeowners better able to confront the hazard of flooding.
Background
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is continually faced with the task of paying
claims while trying to keep the price of flood insurance at an affordable level. It has a particular
problem with repetitive flood loss properties, which are estimated to cost $200 million per year
in flood insurance claim payments. Repetitive flood loss properties represent only 1 percent of
all flood insurance policies, yet historically they have accounted for nearly one-third of the claim
payments (over $4.5 billion to date). Mitigation of these repetitive flood loss properties will
reduce the overall costs to the NFIP as well as to the communities in which they are located and
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
1
9/8/2008
to individual homeowners. illtimately, mitigating repetitive flood loss properties benefits all tax
payers.
The University of New Orleans' Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology
(UNO - CHART) received a special grant from FEMA to collate data and analyze the repetitive
flood loss areas in Louisiana and Texas. Using a geographic information system (GIS) and flood
insurance claims data, repetitive flood loss areas and properties are being prioritized for attention
and analysis. In selected locations where repetitive flooding is a problem, UNO-CHART works
with local officials and residents to conduct in-depth analyses of the causes and possible
solutions to the flooding problem.
UNO-CHART conducted an "area analysis" case study in the Brookglen neighborhood (see
Figures 1-1 and 1-2 on pages 3 and 4 for maps of the area). An area analysis follows FEMA
guidelines to determine the why an area has repeated flood losses and what alternative flood
protection measures would help break the cycle of repetitive flooding.
The Process
This area analysis follows a FEMA-prescribed five step process. However, the UNO-CHART
Team has enhanced the five-step process by adding two important steps: a preliminary step (the
area selection process) and a fmal step (ongoing collaboration with the neighborhood).
Preliminary Step. The area to be studied is selected through a review of the repetitive
flood loss claims data as well as other relevant information about residents of the area
such as their interest in flood mitigation. This is done through a collaborative effort with
local officials and residents. Once a neighborhood is selected, a smaller subset of
properties within the neighborhood is selected as the analysis area based on the
aforementioned criteria, although the goal is to engage the entire neighborhood.
Step 1. Advise all the property owners in the repetitive flood loss area that the analysis
will be conducted.
Step 2. Collect data on the analysis area and each building in the identified study area
within the neighborhood to determine the cause(s) of the repetitive damage.
Step 3. Review alternative mitigation approaches and determine whether any property
protection measures or drainage improvements are feasible.
Step 4. Contact agencies or organizations that may have plans that could affect the
cause or impacts of the flooding.
Step 5. Document the findings, including information gathered from agencies and
organizations, and relevant maps of the analysis area.
Ongoing Collaboration with the Neighborhood. UNO-CHART establishes an ongoing
collaborative partnership with the study area community. The UNO-CHART role
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
2
9/8/2008
includes providing homeowners with information concerning mitigation measures, policy
issues, or other flooding related matters as requested. UNO-CHART will also conduct a
'follow-up' with the community after a period of time has passed.
Preliminary Step: Select the Area
In November 2007, after a careful review of the locations of repetitive flood loss properties
throughout the State of Texas, a team from UNO-CHART visited the City of La Porte and met
with several local officials. These local officials demonstrated their concern for the flooding
problem. The City Council of La Porte has an active Flood Committee that reviews flooding
related issues, and the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan addresses the flooding problem. It was
determined at this time that because of the local commitment to floodplain management and the
number of repetitive flood loss properties, the Brookglen neighborhood would be a good site for
an area analysis.
The Area: The Brookglen neighborhood is located in the city of La Porte, TX. La Porte is in
Harris County, and lies southeast of Houston along Galveston Bay. Brookglen is in the southwest
corner of the city and is bordered by the City of Deer Park to the North, City of Pasadena to the
West, and an unincorporated industrial area to the South. A map of the analysis area can be
found in Figures 1-1 and 1-2.
The Brookglen study area is 100% residential.
concrete slab and all but one house are
single story homes. All of the houses in
the study area were constructed in the
1970s, with the majority completed by
1976. The study area is bounded on the
north and west by a drainage ditch
system: the Willow Springs Bayou to the
west and the West Plantation Ditch to
the north. There are 26 repetitive flood
loss (RL) properties in the study area.
Twenty-Four of these RL properties are
considered severe repetitive flood loss
(SRL) properties by FEMA.
Every home in the 70-lot study area is built on a
Figure 1-3: A Typical Brookglen House
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
3
9/8/2008
Legend
- MajOr HlghMIY'$
- TSARP ChJInnels
_, VUdand:s
c::J l.A Pone ArwIysi5 AI'lS8
o La P.... City Lmm
D eo""" Po""
Figure 1-1: City of La Porte
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
4
9/8/2008
II A.epom.artox
]l\llll~
~!II II jl~
iti ,I .~
"1\ ~\\ \~
La Porte Analysis Area II 1\
1 SuIJI Run St \
II
\
~~ha:ttan.o_og.a=---
Ii ""." " !
\r'"'" II
I, d
~II
~I
'" Legend
Beech.aven
~<- ==#
.!!II jl
~\ f 'I
_II c
",'~I.-'l'
_n -
/I~~l'
f ,;1
1 all
<S
BlInd,.;dg~ Rd
..- ~ ~I
Ashwyn. Ln ~ I
II
Elmh..ven Rd
/)
,/;,/
OakhslI.n Rd
11
.s 1\
l~. ~
~ i ~
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
Ii
8., II
~~..l
~! c,
s"o.!"y" f
~(~
~o. f
11
.I
,II
J,
~Ii
~ll
il ~
II~
~~ ---, -
f
~edgestone_C1
~.i/
l~
I~..ddrlft Ln
II~ ~
Figure 1-2: Brookglen Analysis Area
Step 1: Advise the Homeowners
-
Cl
~ll
=== Streets
- TSARP Ch;;Jl1nels
L:~liInd5
[Ji!] La POI18 Analysis Am
The first step of the FEMA five-step process is to advise the neighborhood about the project. On
February 28,2008, the City of La Porte's Office of Emergency Management sent a notice to the
homeowners introducing them to the project, and informing then that researchers from UNO-
CHART would be collecting data about their neighborhood. The letter included a data sheet to be
completed by the homeowners. Copies of the notice and data sheet appear in Appendices A and
B of this report.
Step 2: Data Collection
The second step in the process was the collection of relevant data on the problem (i.e., the
properties exposed to flooding and cause(s) of the repetitive damage.) Much of the data was
collected through coordinating with many agencies and departments. (For a list of these
stakeholders, see Step 4 of this report.) There were five primary sources of data and information:
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
5
9/8/2008
1. Mitigation Plans
II. Flood Insurance Data
m. Drainage Information
IV. Flooding Experiences of Property Owners
V. On-site Data Collection
I. Mitigation Plans
The UNO-CHART Team reviewed the following plans for information related to flooding in the
study area:
A. La Porte 2020 Comprehensive Plan
B. Harris County All Hazard Mitigation Plan (Harris County, 10/02/2005)
A. La Porte 2020 Comprehensive Plan1: The City of La Porte completed a 20-year
comprehensive plan in 2005. The plan discusses the flooding hazard in Chapter 11.
Chapter 11- Public Safety: Chapter 11, Public Safety, notes that the most devastating flood
threat is storm surge from a hurricane or tropical storm. Heavy rains associated with tropical
events, sometimes 20 to 30 inches, can overwhelm a drainage system. The storm surge from a
category 5 hurricane could flood La Porte up to 10 feet deep. Although it is the greatest flood
threat, this is not discussed as part of this repetitive flooding analysis since this area of La Porte
has not experienced such a storm surge flood,
B. Harris County All Hazard Mitigation Plan2: The City of La Porte adopted the Harris
County All Hazard Mitigation Plan in April 2005. The flood hazard (flood, hurricanes and
coastal storms, dam and levee failure) is identified, analyzed, and assessed in Sections 4.1, 4.2,
and 4.3. According to the Plan, flooding is the greatest threat to Harris County due to numerous
rivers and streams. In fact, flash flooding is common during a heavy rain event. One such
instance of flash flooding that will live in the memory of residents of Texas' east coast is
Tropical Storm Allison. This historic storm occurred on June 5, 2001, and struck Harris County
by surprise, as the storm only formed earlier that day. Allison dumped as much as 12 inches of
rain in four hours on Harris County. The Port of Houston reported 37 inches of rain. Over
73,000 residences in Harris County were flooded, as were hundreds of businesses in the greater
Houston area. Allison was responsible for 22 deaths in Harris County and a total of at least $5
billion in damage in the United States.
1 Copies of the La Porte 2020 Comprehensive Plan are available on the City of La Porte's website: www.ci.la-
porte.tx.us
2 Copies of the Harris County All Hazard Mitigation Plan are available from the La Porte office of Emergency
Management
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
6
9/8/2008
ll. Flood Insurance Data
A. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): A flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is published by
FEMA and shows the potential flood risk according to zones of severity and is sued in setting
flood insurance rates. AE and X zones are found on the FIRM for the study area. The AE zone is
considered an area with a high risk of flooding. This zone is the FEMA designated floodplain,
meaning that there are construction regulations that homeowners of houses located in the AE
zone must follow. Parts of some AE zones may also be shown as a floodway, where there are
additional requirements for new construction. The X zone is considered an area of minimal flood
hazard so there are no Federal requirements to regulate new development there. Most of the
houses in the study area fall in the x zone.
The Harris County FIRM became effective on June 18, 2007. The map in Figure 2-1 shows the
portion of the FIRM that includes the Brookglen neighborhood. The AE zone is primarily limited
to the streets and the drainage ditches, and most lots are in the X zone. The drainage ditches also
are mapped as floodways.
It should be noted that the FIRM does not illustrate the historical risk of flooding. The houses in
Brookg1en have flooded many times since they were built. Showing the lots as X zones on the
FIRM does not accurately explain the true risk of repeated flooding, and could give a new
homebuyer a false sense of safety from flooding. It also means that those parts of the lots with
buildings on them are exempt from FEMA required flood protection regulations and pay lower
flood insurance premiums than their risk warrant.
r---a~_~,
-
---~
, lI23ll
~,o~t;AE' 'I' '
" ___..33ll3 =s (
3307 330i 3307 l.
33'115 ; ---- 3307 -] ,,,,,,,.1
m. 8702 "~. ~~~:.~ z~~~~
~. 6706 /,'8710/lr7"4,'11t1 331:5 _.
---~-~ r -;~_.,
+ -- --- ' I
-" - - - -- - -- 3323 Ba06 \ ~:~ I
~ I -~ = -I '
, := 'o!- -; ._~ . I
,. 3331 !!loa I - -- -"'~' 3331' I
33,. " .m' -, '.." '... ..,. ;"23 : 1lIl27 ""! ~ i!' =,' ~ N
" ,.,. '-_ ~~",,;~"-;()NE,AE a,,: -l w*' I . 'E
f ~ ~ -- 8B02 BSD& 8810 .'4 8818 ~ I!S2!i I!!B3D 8IJwl .-----1 . ~ \.,
S I 3341 ~~__"L 3401 j . ' .
~ ___ -----f;..- _ -=-=--=--.:.:-= =-= _ -= _ =-=-' _ - - - - - - - - ~ s,
--.- --,- -~- ',- T 'I Legend
- ---I' --,/ - ~,,/ '~ 3403 ~ 343B 343Il '3-CO :,,3426 !;,tl22 3418 341" 34UI :wGi :M02
, -~ , l -_ -:. La Porte Analysis Area
..... I Bett i~5 ,'.p "':~7-- ----.--- - I ] fa_I.
_ -- 35C2 ~~~~,1!Jr "......
2 ---- $ 30411 -----;-------,---1 _TSARPCh3nnels
fl5oti> _ ;:~':.t::=t:.ii;',..~:.:..._~ 341:1 ~ . 34a1 -; 3427 3:423 3419 '*15 :Mt1 ;).101 ;1 J403 I Flood Zones
, ~~4 _^
250 375 Fe~ / EiB03 !811881-' l!lBn 1823 88'2.1 / 351-4 I _ AE
500"_ I -ee11 ~
Figure 2-1: Analysis Area Flood Zones
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
7
9/8/2008
B. Flood Insurance Study (FIS): The City of La Porte is covered under the Harris County
Flood Insurance Study (PIS) issued in June 2007. According to the PIS, the resulting potential
for extreme rainfall events, coupled with the flat topography and poorly draining soils, contribute
to the frequent occurrence of flooding. Furthermore, flooding also results from storm surge
along Galveston Bay caused by hurricanes and tropical storms.
C. Claims Data: The UNO-CHART team obtained claims data from FEMA Region VI for all
repetitive flood loss properties in the Brookglen study area. Of the 70 properties included in the
study area., 26 (37%) are repetitive flood loss properties. In total, the homeowners for these
repetitive flood loss properties have received $3,358,943.00 in flood insurance payments since
1978. The average claim payment is $25,066.74. Of the repetitive flood loss properties located
in the study area, 24 (92%) are on FEMA's severe repetitive loss list. Summary data on the
repetitive flood loss properties in the study area and rain gauge data from a gauge near the study
area are given in Table 2-1. This table states that the recent events with the highest claims total
are Tropical Storms Allison (6/912001) and Erin (8/1612007). Additionally, rain events which
accumulate less than 9 inches in the gauge did not produce flood claims, except on one occasion.
The table shows all events recorded by the "Houston Deer Park" rain gauge when over 5 inches
of rain fell over two days or where a flood insurance claim was paid to one of the 26 repetitive
loss properties. The gauge is located
north of the Pasadena Freeway (state
route 225) and east of East Belt
Drive. It is the gauge closest to the
watershed upstream of Brookglen
with available historical data.
While the Deer Park gauge is not a
perfect match to rain conditions that
affect the neighborhood, the table
shows a direct relation between
heavy rains and flood insurance
claims for repetitive loss properties
before 1993. After some drainage
improvements were constructed in
1993, there appears to be a reduction
in claims and payments until
Tropical Storm Allison. The 17
claims from Tropical Storm Erin do
not fit this pattern. Most of Erin's
rain must have fallen south of the
gauge.
It is important to understand that
repetitive flood insurance claims
figures often understate the flooding
problem for various reasons:
Table 2-1: Claims data for the repetitive flood loss
properties in the study area
Rain Number
Date of Gauge of Claims Dollars Paid
Event Reading Claims
7/26/1979 10.63 18 $364,519
9/19/1979 9.48 22 $205,744
6/5/1981 9.59 25 $552,245
6/24/1989 14.47 20 $493,162
10/18/1994 13.96 1 $5,293
12/18/1995 5.05
9/11/1998 7.20
1/5/1998 3.35 1 $3,191
1/22/1998 7.24
6/9/2001 13.43 22 $1,191,364
4/8/2002 5.70
6/19/2006 7.30
10/16/2006 6.80 3 $78,123
8/16/2007 1.82* 17 $465,302
Claims Total: $3,358,943.00
*The reading from Tropical Storm Erin is assumed to be a gauge
reporting error
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
8
9/812008
1. Only data for the 26 repetitive flood loss properties were reviewed. There could be other
properties that have been repetitively flooded, but did not submit claims. Additional,
non-repetitive, flood insurance claims data were not available for the study area.
2. NFIP records do not include claims data from before 1978, so there could have been
additional losses not included.
3. Policy holders may not have submitted claims for smaller floods for fear of it affecting
their coverage or their premium rates.
4. The losses only account for items covered by the insurance policy. Things not covered
include living expenses during evacuation, swimming pools, and automobiles.
Also noteworthy is the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 V.S.C. 522a) that restricts the release of certain
types of data to the public. Rood insurance policy and claims data are included in the list of
restricted information. FEMA can only release such data to state and local governments, and
only if the data are used for floodplain management, mitigation, or research purposes. Therefore,
this report does not identify the repetitive flood loss properties or include claims data for any
individual property. Rather, it discusses them only in summary form.
ID. Drainage Information
Stormwater falling on the Brookglen subdivision runs from the yards to the streets where it is
collected by storm sewers. The stonn sewers flow either north to West Plantation Ditch (coded
B112-02-00 by the Harris County Rood Control District) or west to Willow Springs Bayou
(B112-00-00.) Figure 2-1 (on page 7) illustrates the location of these two drainage channels.
West Plantation Ditch (see Figure 2-2) is a concrete lined drainage channel. Willow Springs
Bayou (see Figures 2-3 through 2-5) has concrete lined sections, but is grass lined in most areas.
Both of these drainage channels are maintained by the Harris County Flood Control District.
A. Flooding Problem: There are three potential sources of the flooding problems in the
Brookglen subdivision.
1) The most severe flooding threat to the area is storm surge. The area has not seen this
type of flooding event to date, therefore, the repetitive flood problem in Brookglen is not
due to storm surge.
2) The stonn sewers are undersized to handle a heavy rain event. As of the date of this
report, the City of La Porte designs stonn sewers to handle flow from a three year rain
event. The rainfall from Tropical Stonn Allison, for example, exceeded 500-year storm
rainfall amounts. Therefore, given the flooding history in Brookglen, it can be assumed
that stonn sewers designed for the 3- year event are not adequate for the heavy rains that
flood the neighborhood.
3) The two drainage ditches, West Plantation and Willow Springs Bayou, drain slowly and
push water into the neighborhood streets, yards and houses during heavy rains. According
to the Comprehensive Plan, water backs up 0.8 feet above the 100-year flood level where
Willow Springs Bayou flows under Fairmont Parkway. Homeowners also report that this
location is a constriction. However, a review of the current Flood Insurance Study profile
for Willow Springs Bayou indicates that there is no constriction at Fairrnont Parkway.
The Flood Insurance Study Profile that was in effect when the Comprehensive Plan was
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
9
9/8/2008
drafted has since been updated. Therefore the current ProfIle, which shows no
constriction, is not the same ProfIle that was used for the Comprehensive Plan. It is
possible that FEMA believes that something (possibly a drainage project) must have
relieved the constriction at Willow Springs Bayou and Fairmont Parkway.
Figure 2-4: Another drainage channel discharges
into Willow Springs Bayou via the pipes on the left
Figure 2-3: Willow Springs Bayou located in
Brookglen Neighborhood
*Note the end of the concrete lining
Figure 2-5: The Willow Springs Bayou becomes a
grass lined channel south of Fairmont Parkway
B. Flood Control Projects: Several drainage projects have occurred over the years in an effort
to reduce flooding in Brookglen. A diversion of the flow from Willow Springs Bayou to Spring
Gully was created by constructing a man-made drainage channel (B 109-03-00) that redirects
flow from the northern part of the West Plantation Ditch (B112-02-00) to Spring Gully (B109-
00-00). Figure 2-6 illustrates this drainage project. This project was completed in 1993. The
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFf
10
9/8/2008
purpose of this interconnect was to divert some of the flow from Willow Springs Bayou to
Spring Gully, and according to a study by Wilbur Smith Engineers 3 , the Brookglen subdivision is
one of the two subdivisions to benefit from the new channel.
La Porte Analysis Area
I
I
~
i_
J'-.-
i
i
,
~
I
1
\
~- PE"CEll.,",vi;
I
L
-\
,)
j'~
/ '(2:;.f~, ,
", .....E
.E_ '\~
S (iI. w ~
C.
~::c"
;g. /
Interconnect 10 8109-00-00
(New Direction of Flow)
1~1f1T'~'
Legend
= Major Highways
- TSARP Channels
- PoAajor Roads ~
~~ Wetlands -~
L ] La Porle City Umtts,
,. --' --..,.)
,~ I
,,;?j
D
,
t
Figure 2-6: Analysis Area Drainage
Several detention ponds have been constructed, including one major detention pond located on a
large site north of Spencer Highway. This detention basin was constructed so that the increased
flow in Spring Gully would not negatively impact downstream drainage. Per a citywide study
conducted by Klotz Engineers4, this area still experiences flooding as a result of:
1) The lack of overland sheet flow paths
2) Undersized channels and bridge crossings
3) Buildings and structures that prevent the natural flow pattern
Table 2-1 shows that the drainage improvements to date appear to have reduced flooding from
smaller storms. However, the drainage system was overwhelmed by Tropical Storm Allison in
2001 and Tropical storm Erin in 2007.
3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study for Interconnect of B 112-02 to B 1 09-00 (Wilbur Smith Engineers for Harris
County, April 1997)
4 La Porte City-Wide Drainage study: Reports #1 and #2 (Klotz Engineers for City of La Porte, Tx, 2008)
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
11
9/8/2008
The Klotz report notes that the Brookglen subdivision has many homes that experienced flooding
during Tropical Storms Allison and Erin. These two events were heavy rain events that
overwhelmed the storm sewers. Rainwater flows into the West Plantation Ditch from the
neighborhood streets through pipes that vary in size from 24 to 30 inches, and the water ponds in
the cul-de-sac or streets located north or south of the channel. Recommendations for reducing
this ponding made in the report are discussed in the mitigation measures section of this report.
IV. Flooding Experiences of Property Owners
As mentioned in Step 1, the letter about the area analysis to the residents living in the Brookglen
Analysis Area from the City of La Porte included a data sheet. This data sheet offered residents
the opportunity to provide the UNO-CHART Team with details about their flooding experiences,
and to voice their concerns regarding flooding-related issues. Of the 70 properties to which
letters were sent, 20 residents responded, achieving a response rate of approximately 29%.
The homeowners who returned a data sheet to UNO-CHART have offered some insight into the
flooding problem. Most of the respondents have moved to the neighborhood since 2000, and all
reported having either flooded or having a water problem. The most prevalent years for flooding
were 2001 and 2007, Tropical Storms Allison and Erin. Most respondents reported low depth,
short duration flooding, having less than one foot of water inside their house for fewer than 12
hours. Finally, while few respondents reported using a flood protection measure to protect their
property, all of the respondents were interested in learning about mitigation. The detailed results
are organized in Table 2-2.
The following general conclusions can be drawn from the resident's comments:
. During heavy rain events, the West Plantation drainage ditch overflows and floods the
neighborhood.
. Floodwaters have reached halfway between the street and houses 10 - 12 times over the
last several years.
. Residents are concerned that with increased development in La Porte and in neighboring
cities, their risk of flooding will increase.
. According to the residents, the drainage ditches are not kept clean and clear of debris.
Increasing Development: Residents expressed concerns over the increasing development in La
Porte and the surrounding cities. This is a topic often of concern to floodplain managers and to
residents of rapidly growing areas. The City of Deer Park is located just north of the study area,
across Spencer Highway. Both residential and commercial development is occurring in Deer
Park, within close proximity to the Brookglen neighborhood. The recent development occurring
just outside of the Brookglen neighborhood includes several detention ponds tat should mitigate
the effects of the construction. However, according to residents, these detention ponds fill
quickly, and then the neighborhood continues to flood.
Figure 2-7 shows the recent development along Spencer Highway, the main road outside of the
Brookg1en subdivision.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
12
9/8/2008
Table 2-2: Data Sheet Results
Total Respondents 20
10% 1970s
In what year did you move to the home at this address 25% 1980s
25% 1990s
40% 2000s
What type offoundation does your house have 100% Slab
Has the property ever been flooded or have a water problem 100% Yes
15% 1976
10% 1981
30% 1989
In what years did it flood 80% 2001
5% 2003
25% 2006
55% 2007
45% < 1 ft House
25% 1-2 ft House
25% 2-3 ft House
What was the deepest the water ever got 15% I < 1 ft Yard
0% 1-2ftYard
5% 2-3 ft Yard
10% 3-4 ft Yard
25% 0-6 Hours
What was the longest time that the water stayed in the nouse 15% 7-12 Hours
5% 13-18 Hours
15% I 19-24 Hours
65% Drainage from nearby properties
70% Overbank flooding from nearby ditch
What do you feel was the cause ofyourflooding (multiple answers 35% Storm sewer backup
55% Storm surge from nearby waterways
were allowed) 20% Sanitary sewer backup
55% Clogged/undersized drainage ditch
5% I Standing water next to house
Have you taken any flood protection measures on your property 15% Moved Utilities
(multiple answers were allowed) 5% Sandbagged
Do you have flood insurance 100% Yes
Are you interested in learning more about mitigation 100% Yes
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
13
9/812008
Figure 2-7: Note that the structures on the Deer Park side of Spencer Highway are higher above the
street that those on the La Porte side.
V. On-Site Data Collection
A. Windshield Data: On November 28, 2007, a team from UNO-CHART visited the Brookglen
analysis area and collected information on each property in the study area to gain a better
understanding of all of the factors that contribute to the flooding problem.
All structures in the study area are built on a concrete slab, are in good condition, and are, at
most, one foot above grade. However, the height of the houses above the street varies. Most
structures are masonry, and all but one house are single story buildings. Few homeowners have
a detached structure, such as a shed or garage, on the lot. Detailed information that the UNO-
CHART Team members collected on a site visit is found in Table 2-4. Figure 1-3 (page 3)
provides a picture of a typical house found in the study area.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
14
9/812008
Table 2-3: Windshield Data
Total Structures 70
Occupied 65
Vacant 5
68 Slab
Foundation type 0 Piers
0 Crawlspace
Foundation Condition 68 Good
0 Fair
64 Masonry
Structure Type 1 Wood Frame
3 I Combination - Masonry/Wood Frame
Structure Condition 68 Good
0 Fair
Number of Stories 67 I 1 Story Home
1 2 Story Home
Height Above Grade 68 I 0-1 Feet
0 0-1 Feet
33 I 1 -2 Feet
Height Above Street 26 2 - 3 Feet
10 3 - 4 Feet
0 4+ Feet
2 shed
Appurtenant Structure 5 Detached garage
0 other
Problem Statement
Based on the data collected from the five sources of information (flood studies, flood insurance
data, drainage information, the property owners, and on-site surveying), the following bullets
summarize the repetitive flood loss problems in the Brookglen analysis area:
· Most structures in the study area fall within an X flood zone, which usually indicates a
low risk of flooding, however the houses in the study continually flood.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFf
15
9/8/2008
. The 26 repetitive flood loss properties in the study area have made a total of 134 claims
for a total of $3,358,943.00 since 1978.
. Other properties have been flooded but are not on FEMA's RL list
. Of the 26 repetitive flood loss properties, 24 are considered severe repetitive flood loss
properties.
. Average RL flood claim is $25,000.
. Residents report maximum flood depths and duration of four feet for 24 hours.
. Flooding is caused by undersized channels and bridge crossings, man-made obstructions
to the predominant flow pattern, and a slow moving drainage ditch.
. Drainage improvements have been made, however the area continues to flood.
Step 3: Mitigation Measures
Reviewing the drainage system, the flooding problem, and the types and condition of the
buildings in the area leads to the third step in the area analysis procedure - a review of alternative
approaches to protect properties from future flood damage. Property owners should look at these
alternatives but understand they are not all guaranteed to provide 100% flood protection. Seven
approaches were analyzed:
1. Drainage improvements
2. Acquisition of properties in the hazardous area
3. Elevating the houses above the 100- year flood level
4. Constructing small levees or floodwalls around one or more houses
5. Dry floodproofmg
6. Development regulations
7. Purchasing flood insurance coverage on the building
Each approach has its pros and cons. Drainage improvements and development regulations need
to be implemented by the City or County. The other measures can be implemented by the
property owners, but City or County funding can help, especially with acquisition and elevation.
I. Drainage Improvements
As noted in the problem description (page 8), repetitive flooding in Brookglen is caused by two
related drainage problems:
1. The storm sewers are undersized to handle a heavy rain event
2. The two drainage ditches, West Plantation Ditch and Willow Springs Bayou, drain slowly
and back up into the neighborhood streets, yards and houses during heavy rains.
Larger storm sewers are suggested by the Harris County All Hazard Mitigation Plan and by the
Klotz Associates Report #2. The City of La Porte now designs storm sewers to handle flow from
a three-year event, however the Harris County Flood Control District Policy Criteria and
Procedure Manual calls for storm sewers to be designed for 10 to 100-year storm.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
16
9/8/2008
It would be very expensive to replace the existing storm sewer system with larger pipes.
However, Klotz recommends constructing an overland sheet flow path, which provides a clear
route located over the ground for stormwater to quickly flow into drainage canals, at the north
end of Gladwyne Lane. Figure 3-1 is a photograph of a sheet flow path. When Gladwyne and
the other streets fill up with stormwater, the sheet flow path would drain the water directly to
West Plantation Ditch.
The effectiveness of this approach is dependent on the ditches being able to accept the
stormwater and carry it downstream. This won't
happen if they are already full or backing up,
which is reported to happen at the same time the
streets flood. Residents report that the channels
need better maintenance and there are conflicting
reports as to whether the bridge at Fairmont
Parkway constricts flows. Both of these concerns
need further investigation by the City or the
Flood Control District.
II. Acquisition
Figure 3-1: Sample sheet flow path
(from Klotz Report)
This measure involves buying one or more
properties and clearing the site. If there is no building subject to flooding, there is no flood
damage. Acquisitions are usually recommended where the flood hazard is so great or so frequent
that it is not safe to leave the structure on site.
An alternative to buying and clearing the whole subdivision is buying out individual, "worst
case," structures with FEMA funds. This approach would involve purchasing and clearing the
lowest or the most severe repetitive flood loss homes. If FEMA funds are to be used, three
requirements will apply:
1. The applicant for FEMA must demonstrate that the benefits exceed the costs, using
FEMA's benefit/cost software.
2. The owner must be a willing seller.
3. The parcel must be deeded to a public agency that agrees to maintain the lot and keep it
forever as open space.
Problems:
1. High cost and difficulty to obtain a favorable benefit-cost ratio, which demonstrates the
cost-effectiveness of a proposed project, in shallow flooding areas
2. Not everyone wants to sell their home, so a checkerboard pattern of vacant and occupied
lots often remains after a buyout project, leaving "holes" in the neighborhood
3. There is no reduction in expenses to maintain the neighborhood's infrastructure, although
the tax base is reduced
4. The vacant lots must be maintained by the new owner agency, and additional expense is
added to the community.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
9/8/2008
17
Despite these problems, the Harris County Flood Control District does support the use of
mitigation funds for acquiring and clearing repetitive flood loss propertiess. Eligibility for the
program is determined by several conditions:
. The property must be a severe repetitive flood loss property
. The action of buying out the property must meet the FEMA designated benefit-cost ratio
. The property must not be located in an area where a planned capital project will reduce
the flooding problem, as it would be a duplicative solution.
ID. Elevation
Raising the structure above the flood level is generally viewed as the best flood protection
measure, short of removing the building from the floodplain. All damageable portions of the
building and its contents are high and dry during a flood, which flows under the floor instead of
into the house. Houses can either be elevated on fill, posts/piles, or on a crawlspace. A house
elevated on fill requires adding a specific type of dirt, called structural fill, to a lot and building
the house on top of the added dirt. A house elevated on posts/ piles is either built or raised on a
foundation of piers that are driven into the earth
and rise high enough above the ground to elevate
the house above the flood level. A house
elevated on a crawlspace is built or raised on a
wall-like foundation that elevates the house above
the flood level. If a crawlspace is used, it is
important to include vents that are appropriately
sized: one square inch for each square foot of the
building's footprint. An example of an elevated
house is shown in Figure 3-2.
Cost: Most of the cost to elevate a building is in Figure 3-2: A slab house that has been
the preparation and foundation construction. The elevated
cost to elevate six feet is little more than the cost
to elevate two feet. Elevation is usually cost-effective for wood frame buildings on crawlspaces
because it is easiest to get lifting equipment under the floor and disruption to the habitable part of
the house is minimal. Elevating a slab house is much more costly, disruptive, and dangerous, but
it can be done. All of the houses in the Brookglen study area are on a slab. The actual cost of
elevating a particular building depends on factors such as its condition, whether it is masonry or
brick faced, the soil conditions, and if additions to the house have been made over time.
While the cost of elevating a home on a slab can be high, there are funding programs that can
help. The usual arrangement is for a FEMA grant to pay 75% of the cost while the remaining
25% is paid by a non-Federal source. In Harris County, the County pays the non-Federal
portion.o
5 For more information on the Harris County Flood Control District buyout program, please see
htto://www.hcfcd.org/buvout.a8P?flash=ves or call 713-684-4020 or 713-684-4035.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
18
9/812008
Feasibility: Federal funding support for an elevation project requires a study that shows that the
benefits of the project exceed the cost.
Elevating a masonry home or a slab can be very expensive, up to $100,000. Looking at each
property individually could result in funding for the worst case properties, i.e., those that are
lowest, subject to the most frequent flooding, and is structurally sound enough to elevate.
IV. Barriers to Floodwaters
Small floodwalls, levees, or berms could be constructed around one or more properties. Such
barriers are not recommended for flood depths greater than three feet. Barriers are appropriate
for most homes in Brookglen given the flood depths reported by residents on the returned data
sheets. Levees and berms are more suitable for larger lots. However, small floodwalls that are
located close to the hosue are appropriate for suburban neighborhoods such as Brookglen. If a
floodwall is built around a house, it is important to include a sump pump with a backup generator
so that rainwater can be pumped to the outside of the protected space. An engineer should be
consulted before beginning a floodwall project, and residents should contact the La Porte
Planning Department to acquire a permit. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show an example of a floodwall
and sump pump.
... ..
IC~
l.......
,:., ,
Figure 3-3: This home is surrounded by a
floodwall, but the garage door must be
sandbagged when the area floods. The
wall doubles as a planter box to reduce
the visual impact of a flood protection
structure.
..,
Figure 3-4: Rain water and seepage
under this floodwall collect in the basin,
or sump, and is pumped over the wall
by a sump pump.
Another concern is the permeability of the soil. Permeable soil will allow floodwaters to seep
under the barrier. This is a particular problem when floodwaters remain for a long time. There
are different types of soil found throughout La Porte. The Brookglen neighborhood has a type of
soil called Lake Charles Clay. Clay is the most ideal type of soil for building a floodwall.
However, before building a floodwall, it is advised to have the soil on site tested to determine the
permeability. Figure 3-5 shows the different soil types in and near the study area.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
9/8/2008
19
'7
..
...
,
_ Major Highways
-- Streets
~ La Porte AnalysisArea
- TSARP Channels
ti~ 'Wetlands
'"
Figure 3-5: Soils map for the Brookglen neighborhood and surrounding area
Barriers require:
. A method to close openings, such as the driveway. Generally, this requires "human
intervention," meaning someone needs to be available and have enough time to take
action.
. A system to prevent sanitary sewer backup from flowing into the building, such as a back
flow valve.
. A system of drain tile (perforated pipes) that collects water that falls or seeps into the
protected area and sends it to a collecting basin or "sump."
· A sump pump to send the collected water outside the barrier.
. Power to operate the sump pump around the clock during a storm.
Cost: The cost of a local barrier depends on the depth of flooding and the amount of engineering
put into the design. Where flooding is only inches deep and of short duration, almost any barrier
of concrete or earth will work.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
20
9/8/2008
The most conservative cost estimate for a floodwall is based on a two foot high engineered
cantilevered concrete floodwall. A cantilevered wall has a footing to provide stability and keep
the water pressure from pushing it over.
The budget
shown in Table
3-1 is for a 40'x
40' home with a
flood wall one
foot outside the
building wall.
Labor accounts for about half the price in the cost estimate.
Table 3-1: Floodwall Cost Estimate
Two Foot high reinforced concrete cantilever wall, 168 feet @ $200/foot $33,600
Internal drainage and sump pump system 5,000
Sewer backup valve 4,500
Generator for power outages 900
TOTAL $44,000
It should be noted that smaller, non-engineered walls such as the ones in Figures 3-3 and 3-4 on
page 19 have been built by their owners for less than $10,000.
FEMA does not fund individual floodwalls for residential properties, therefore, the homeowner
must pay 100% of the cost for a floodwall. However, each property owner can determine how
much of their own labor they want to contribute and whether the cost of a wall is worth the
protection from flooding that it provides.
V. Dry Floodproofmg
This measure keeps floodwaters out of a building by steps taken to protect the building directly.
Walls are coated with waterproofmg compounds or plastic sheeting. Openings (doors, windows,
and vents) are closed, either permanently, with removable shields, or with sandbags.
A floodproofmg project has three components:
e Make the walls watertight. This is easiest to do for masonry or brick faced walls such as
those found in the study area. The brick walls can be covered with a waterproof sealant
and bricked over with a thin brick veneer to camouflage the sealant. Wood, vinyl, or
metal siding needs plastic sheeting to make them watertight. The most effective
approach is to apply a sealant and plastic sheeting and then cover the job with brick, a
second facing to protect the waterproofing from punctures.
· Provide closures for the openings; including doors, windows, dryer vents and weepholes;
such as removable shields or sandbags.
· Account for sewer backup and other sources of water entering the building. For shallow
flood levels, this can be done with a floor drain; although a valve system is more secure.
Dry floodproofrng employs the building itself as part of the barrier to the passage of floodwaters,
and therefore this technique is only recommended for buildings with non-cracked slab
foundations because the solid slab foundation prevents floodwaters from entering a building
from below. Also, even if the building is in sound condition, tests by the Corps of Engineers
have shown that dry floodproofrng should not be used for depths greater than 3 feet over the
floor, because water pressure on the structure can collapse the walls and/or buckle the floor. Dry
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
21
9/8/2008
floodproofmg is a mitigation technique that is appropriate for the Brookglen neighborhood;
according to the returned data sheets flood depths have not exceeded 3 feet.
MAXIMUM PROTECTION LEVEL IS 3 FEET (INCLUDING FREEBOARO)
~ ~
~ BACKFLOW VALVE PREVENTS
SEWER AND DRAIN BACKUP
~ SHIELDS FOR
OPENINGS
EXTERNAL COATING OR
COVERING IMPERVIOUS TO
FLOOD WATER
Figure 3-6: Dry Floodproofed House
Not all parts of the building need to be floodproofed. It is difficult to floodproof a garage door,
for example, so many owners let the garage flood and floodproof the walls between the garage
and the rest of the house. Appliances, electrical outlets, and other damage-prone materials
located in the garage should be elevated above the expected flood levels. Examples of
floodproofed houses can be seen in Figures 3-7 through 3-10.
Dry floodproofmg has the following shortcomings as a flood protection measure:
. It usually requires human intervention, i.e., someone must be home to close the openings.
. Its success depends on the building's condition, which may not be readily evident. It is
very difficult to tell if there are cracks in the slab under the floor covering.
. Periodic maintenance is required to check for cracks in the walls and to ensure that the
waterproofmg compounds do not decompose.
. There are no government fmancial assistance programs available for dry floodproofmg,
therefore the entire cost of the project must be paid by the homeowner.
. The NFIP will not offer a lower insurance rate for dry floodproofed residences.
Cost: The cost for a floodproofmg project can vary according to the building's construction and
condition. It can range from $5,000 to $20,000, depending on how secure the owner wants to be.
Owners can do some of the work by themselves, although an experienced contractor provides
greater security. Each property owner can determine how much of their own labor they can
contribute and whether the cost and appearance of a project is worth the protection from flooding
that it may provide.
Feasibility: As with floodwalls, floodproofmg is appropriate where flood depths are shallow and
are of relatively short duration. It can be an effective measure for many of the structures and
flood conditions found in the Brookglen target area. It can also be more attractive than a
floodwall around a house.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
22
9/8/2008
~
Figure 3-8: The same home has a steel door with
gaskets that seal when closed
Figure 3-9: This dry flood proofed commercial
building had the walls waterproofed and removable
shields placed in the windows.
Figure 3-10: This home has permanent shields
sealing the space under the windows.
VI. Development Regulations that Reduce Flood Risk
Many communities have adopted ordinances, deed restrictions, or neighborhood covenants that
are intended to promote safety and order. Often times these restrictions may limit the owner's
freedom to do whatever (s)he pleases with the property or building. These restrictions can be
enforced at the city level, and/or at the neighborhood level. The Brookglen analysis area has two
sets of rules with which to comply:
A. City of La Porte Code of Ordinances
B. Brookglen Neighborhood Deed Restrictions/Covenants
These regulations have been put in place to protect homeowners. The existing city ordinances
call for flood protection of buildings located in the A flood zone, but not for those structures in
the X zone. Most of the structures in the study fall in the X zone.
The code of ordinances requires the lowest floor in new buildings and substantially improved
homes to be elevated to one foot above the base flood elevation. However, this ordinance only
applies to structures located in the AE flood zone and there are few in the Brookglen study area.
The City can amend this ordinance to include X Zone areas in its regulatory floodplain.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
23
9/8/2008
Many communities in flat areas with drainage problems require all new buildings to have their
lowest floors elevated a specified height above the street. This allows the streets to collect and
store stormwater that cannot drain away fast enough, without flooding homes.
Ironically, neighborhood covenants or deed restrictions regulating development within a
subdivision are intended to help the neighborhood maintain a sense of solidarity, distinct
character, and residential quality. In certain instances, these deed restrictions may hinder
residents' plans for a flood mitigation project.
The Brookglen Deed Restrictions state that all structures must have a slab foundation and should
look similar with respect to the fInished grade elevation. Also, the deed restrictions prohibit walls
erected in front of the required minimum building setback. According to these guidelines, neither
a slab home elevated on fill nor a floodwall would be allowed in the Brookglen neighborhood.
The homeowners association can amend these covenants to allow for mitigation measures and
continue to maintain a positive, unified neighborhood look by promoting crawlspace elevated
foundations and allowing small floodwalls in front yards.
VIT. Flood Insurance
Although not a mitigation measure that reduces property damage from a flood, an insurance
policy from the National Flood Insurance Program has the following advantages for the
homeowner:
. A flood insurance policy reduces a homeowner's financial expenses when flooding
occurs.
. It is an excellent "backup" for a floodwall or elevation project where the flood is higher
than the protection level as it helps absorb the fInancial risk.
. The repetitive, shallow, flooding is unlikely to reach conditions severe enough for a
disaster declaration, which allows for additional fInancial support. Therefore, flood
insurance may be the only source of assistance to help owners of damaged property pay
for cleanup and repairs.
. Once the policy goes into effect there is no need for human intervention except to pay the
prermum.
. Coverage is available for the contents of a home as well as for the structure.
. Renters can buy contents coverage, even if the building owner does not buy coverage for
the structure itself.
Cost: Flood insurance rates are based on several factors including whether or not the building
falls in an AE or X flood zone, and if the building is considered a Pre- or Post-FIRM building.
Homes in the X zone have lower flood insurance rates than those in the AE zone, because the X
zone is supposed to indicate a lower risk from flooding. Many homes in the study area are in an
X zone. La Porte homes constructed before February 17, 1971 are "pre-FIRM" buildings, which
means that they were built before the date of the first FIRM for the community, and are thus
eligible for the "subsidized" flood insurance premium rates. A post-FIRM building - which is a
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
24
9/8/2008
building constructed or substantially improved
after the date of the most current FIRM - such
as one built or substantially improved in 2008,
is subject to rates based on actual risk.
Table 3-2 shows the rates for a policy with
$150,000 coverage on the building. For
example, a house built in 1975 that meets the
BFE with a $150,000 building/$60,000 contents
policy will cost the homeowner approximately
$1100 annually to insure. If a pre-FIRM house
in the AE zone is elevated to 1 foot above the
BFE, the owner will be able to take advantage
of the much lower post-FIRM rates,
approximately $600 annually.
It should be noted that almost all of the
buildings in the Brookglen study area are
eligible for the X zone rates.
Table 3-2: Example NFIP Flood
Insurance Premiums
Policy/Building
Exposure Premium
Pre-FIRM ("subsidized") $1,605
rate (AE zone) Post-FIRM (actuarial) rates (AE zone)
2 feet above BFE $425
1 foot above BFE $601
At BFE $1083
1 foot below BFE $3,877
X Zone $931
Annual premium is for $150,000 in
building coverage and $60,000 in
contents coverage for a one-story
house with no basement and a $500
deductible.
May 1, 2007, Flood Insurance Agent's
Manual
Community Rating System (CRS): The Community Rating System is a "voluntary incentive
program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain activities that exceed the
minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements." (www.FEMA.gov)
Participating communities are rewarded with reduced insurance premiums. The City of La Porte
participates in the CRS and is currently rated as a Class 7, which means that properties in the AE
zone receive a 15% reduction in their insurance premiums. Properties in the X zone receive a
5% premium rate reduction. These reductions are not reflected in the example premiums in the
table. If the community pursues additional floodplain management activities that exceed the
requirements of the NFIP, such as adopting stricter local development regulations, all La Porte
homeowners could be eligible for even further decreased flood insurance rates.
See the Table 3-3 for a summary of the mitigation measures presented in this report.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
9/8/2008
25
Table 3-3: Summary of the Alternative Mitigation Measures
Measure Advantages Disadva ntages
Drainage Little disruption of neighborhood May not work for large storms
Improvements Protects yards Dependent on free flowing channels
100% flood protection High cost
Acquisition Buyout program available through Need source of non-FEMA cost share
HCFCD
High cost
More secure flood protection Need source of non-FEMA cost share
Elevation Most building not eligible for FEMA
Flood insurance rate reduction funding
Effective for shallow flooding Subject to seepage if water stays up for
Floodwalls Soil types in Brookglen are a long time
appropriate for floodwalls
Low cost Exposes homes to wall/floor damage
Dry Floodproofing Effective for shallow flooding on Subject to seepage if water stays up for
slab foundations a long time
Development Protects houses from shallow Only impacts construction in the
regulated floodplain
Regulations repetitive flooding May not do much for existing buildings
Always in effect
Flood Insurance Works for all flood levels Does not prevent flood damage (but
Under ICC, can be a source of does provide funds for repairs)
funds for elevation
VIll. Funding for Mitigation Projects
There are several possible sources of funding for mitigation projects:
A. FEMA programs: The Federal government will not pay 100% of the cost for a mitigation
project. Most of the FEMA programs provide 75% of the cost of a project. The remaining 25%
is expected to be paid by a non-Federal source such as the local or county government, and in
some cases the homeowner. Harris County provides the 25% match for La Porte homeowners.
Each program has different Congressional authorization and slightly different rules.
B. Flood Insurance: There is a special funding provision in the NFIP for insured buildings that
are located in the A flood zone and have been substantially damaged by a flood, IDcreased Cost
of Compliance (ICC). ICC coverage pays for the cost to comply with floodplain management
regulations after a flood if the building has been declared substantially damaged. ICC will pay
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
26
9/8/2008
up to $30,000 to help cover elevation, relocation, demolition, and (for nonresidential buildings)
floodproofmg.
The building's flood insurance policy must have been in effect during the flood. This payment is
in addition to the damage claim payment that would be made under the regular policy coverage,
as long as the total claim does not exceed $250,000. Claims must be accompanied by a
substantial damage determination made by the local floodplain administrator. Coverage under
the ICC does have limitations:
· It covers only damage caused by a flood;
· The building's flood insurance policy must have been in effect during the flood;
· ICC payments are limited to $30,000 per structure;
· The structure must have a substantial damage determination - in which case flood
damage equals or exceeds 50% of the home's market value, or a repetitive damage
determination - which means that the house is on FEMA's repetitive flood loss list. The
local floodplain administrator makes these determinations, and;
· The structure must be located in an A flood zone.
Most, if not all homes in the Brookglen study area are located in the X zone and therefore are not
eligible for the ICC funding, unless the City amends its development regulations as noted in
Section V of this report.
C. Rebates: A rebate is a grant in which the costs are shared by the homeowner and another
source, such as the local government, usually given to a property owner after a project has been
completed. Many communities favor it because the owner handles all the design details,
contracting, and payment before the community makes a fmal commitment. The owner ensures
that the project meets all of the program's criteria, has the project constructed, and then goes to
the community for the rebate after the completed project passes inspection.
Rebates are more successful where the cost of the project is relatively small, e.g., under $5,000,
because the owner is more likely to be able to afford to fmance the bulk of the cost; the rebate
acts more as an incentive, rather than as needed financial support.
More information on rebates can be found in the Corps of Engineers' report Local Flood
Proofing Programs found at www.nwo.usace.army.milJnfpc/other.html.
See Appendix C, page 33, for more information on funding sources
Step 4: Coordination
The following agencies and organizations were contacted by the UNO-CHART team:
· La Porte Office of Emergency Management
· La Porte City Council Flood Committee
· La Porte Public Works Department
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
27
9/812008
. La Porte Planning Department
. Harris County Flood Control District
. FEMA Mitigation Region VI - Mitigation
. La Porte GIS Department
. Brookglen Homeowners Association
. Texas Water Development Board - Houston Field Office
Step 5: Findings and Recommendations
I. Findings: UNO-CHARI's findings for the Brookglen Repetitive Flood Loss Area Analysis
can be broken into four categories:
A. Drainage Issues: Properties in the Brookglen study area are subject to flooding due to heavy
rains and drainage problems. There are two sources of flooding that are related to drainage
problems. The fIrst problem is due to heavy rains and small storm sewers. The storm sewers are
designed to handle rainfall from only a 3-year event. Harris County Flood Control District
recommends design standards to handle between a 10- and 100-year event. The Klotz reports
recommend constructing a sheet flow path, or increasing the size of the storm sewers.
The second drainage problem in Brookglen is that the West Plantation Ditch overflows its banks
flooding the neighborhood streets, yards and even houses. Contributing to this problem is a
reported bridge or culvert constriction at Willow Springs Bayou and Fairmont Parkway (the
current Flood Insurance Study profile for Willow Springs Bayou does not show a constriction at
this location), and that the West Plantation Ditch was cut off at its intersection with an
interconnect to Spring Gully which was completed in 1997.
Several drainage improvements made over the years were meant to alleviate flooding in the
Brookglen area; however, properties have continued to flood, as is evidenced by the repetitive
flood claims data.
B. Mapping Issues: In June 2007 La Porte received a new FIRM. This FIRM shows two flood
zones and one floodway in the Brookglen neighborhood. Generally, the streets are mapped as an
AE zone, the lots as an X zone, and the land along the drainage ditches as an AE floodway. The
Base Flood Elevation for the Brookglen neighborhood is 20 feet above sea level. The ground
elevation is also 20 feet above sea level. These factors would usually indicate that the risk of
flooding is very low; however, the neighborhood continues to flood. Therefore, this study
concludes that the flood risk in the Brookglen neighborhood is under-represented on the most
recent FIRM.
c. Regulations Issues: Brookglen neighborhood residents have a set of deed
restrictions/neighborhood covenants to follow regarding what they can and cannot do to their
houses. The covenants mandate that all houses must have a slab foundation. Additionally, each
house must have a similar elevation above grade to their neighbors. These rules inhibit residents
from elevating their homes above the flood levels. The deed restrictions also include language
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
28
9/8/2008
that prohibits the construction of a small personal floodwall in the front yards of Brookglen
houses, as no walls are allowed between the minimum building setback and the street.
The building ordinances for La Porte have elevation requirements for new, substantially
damaged, and substantially improved residential buildings located in the 100-year floodplain.
These regulations require an extra level of safety for frequently flooded property owners, i.e. one
extra foot of protection. However, because most of the structures in the Brookglen neighborhood
are located in the X zone, the regulations do not apply, and thus must be done voluntarily. More
stringent building regulations can protect homeowners' from future flooding and help them
qualify for ICC funding.
D. Mitigation Measures: Several mitigation techniques would be helpful to residents. Drainage
improvements would cause little disruption of the neighborhood, and would protect streets and
yards as well as houses. However, the success of such improvements is determined by free
flowing channels, and drainage improvements may not work for large storms. Acquisition offers
100% flood protection, and there is a buyout program available from the Harris County Flood
Control District. Elevation above the flood hazard also offers secure flood protection. Harris
County is not currently offering an elevation program, however the City of La Porte can apply
for elevation funds separate from the County. Elevation is costly, especially for slab houses.
Small personal floodwalls are effective for shallow flooding, and the soil types found in the
study area are appropriate for floodwalls. If floodwaters stay up for a long period of time, the
floodwall could be subject to seepage. Dry floodproofmg is a lower cost option than floodwalls
for owners of slab houses, but a dry floodproofed house is also susceptible to seepage during
longer duration floods. Revision development regulations causes no physical impact to a house
while protecting homes from shallow repetitive flooding. However, revised development
regulations may not do too much for existing buildings. Flood Insurance is always in effect and
works for all flood levels. It will not prevent flood damage, but it will provide funds for repairs.
II. Recommendations: These recommendations are categorized first for the City of La Porte,
and second for La Porte homeowners. They are a combination of recommended improvements
made by the reports which were reviewed for this report, and recommendations made by the
UNO-CHART Team.
A. For the City of La Porte:
. Adopt more stringent local development regulations including
o a cumulative damage/improvement ordinance6
o mandating that all fIrst floor elevations must be a certain height above the street,
e.g. two to three feet, rather than the current one foot requirement (as similar to
Action I in the Appendix of the Harris County All Hazard Mitigation Plan)
o identifying repetitively flooded neighborhoods and regulating the X zo.ne in these
neighborhoods as if it were an A flood zone
6Cumulative damage/improvement ordinance: Any combination of repairs, reconstruction, alteration, or
improvements to a building in which the cumulative cost equals or exceeds fIfty percent (50%) of the market value
of the building.
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
29
9/8/2008
. Explore alternative financing methods to support flood mitigation projects, such as the
possibility of establishing a rebate program
. Provide assistance with on-site mitigation projects through
o soils testing for homeowners who want to consider building a floodwall
o encourage the neighborhood to modify the deed restriction to allow for mitigation
. Consider seriously a sheet flow path as recommended by Klotz Associates for getting
storm waters from heavy rain events into the drainage ditches
. Study the possible obstruction identified in the La Porte 2020 Comprehensive Plan,
located at the intersection of the Willow Springs Bayou and Fairmont Parkway
. Partner with the neighborhood, perhaps using it as a test area for locally initiated
mitigation options such as a rebate program and regulating a repetitively flooded X zone
area as AE zone.
B. For the Brookglen Homeowners:
., Contact the office of Emergency Management 7 for more information about possible
funding opportunities
iii Maintain an inlet maintenance program that encourages homeowners to frequently clear
their drains of debris to ensure open flow for rain waters
. Amend the subdivision covenants to allow crawlspaces and floodproofmg measures such
as floodwalls and elevation
. Review the alternative mitigation measures discussed in this analysis and implement
those that are most appropriate for their situations
. Purchase and maintain a flood insurance policy on the home
. Stay vigilant about new flood threats, such as development issues, and commit the
neighborhood energy to studying and mitigating such threats.
7 La Porte office of Emergency Management: (281)471-5020
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
30
9/8/2008
Appendix A
CITY OF LA PORTE
OFFICE OF E1VIERGENCY l\i!<\NAGEMENl
February 28, 2008
Brookglen Neighborhood Resident
<<Address>>
La Porte, TX 77571
RE: La Forte Repetitive Flooding Project
Dear Brookglen Resident:
The City of La Porte Office of Emergency Management is reviewing ways to reduce some of our
repetitive flooding problems, Your property in the Brookglen neighborhood is located in a part of La
Porte tha.t has tentatively been designated as an area to study for such possible improvements.
As part of this project, a team from the University of New Orleans' Center for Hazards Assessment,
Response and Technology (ClL.o\RT) is preparing a'\x:al area analysis'for the target area. The
approach \vruch they take includes collecting some data specific to your property such as its flooding
experiences, UNO/CH.A.RT staffwas in the area during the day on November 28, collecting general
information from the street, such as the type of foundation and approximate height of the house above
the street,
This work would be greatly improved "villi additional data that you might be able to provide. Attached
is a data sheet that we hope you will complete and return by March 19,2008. After you fill the form
out, please fold it, tape it, and mail it to the address on the flip side. A stamp has been provided.
After the analysis is completed, some preliminary recommendations will be developed. You will be
in"ited to arneeting "vith us and the UNO/CHART team to review the fmdings. The meeting time and
location will be advertised once the analysis is near completion.
If you have any questions about this project, please feel free to call Jeff Suggs, Emergency
Management Coordinator for La Porte at (281) 470-0010, or Sarah Stack at UNO/CILA.RT, at (504)
280-5760,
Thank you for your assistance in helping us to complete this project.
Sincerely,
l.~ ) I ,'.,
,Vt-~;' ... t~t..t...,.,-"7 ~~
.~' ,.., -'"-"
J~ff . ~ggs .. r.~
Emergency Management Coordinator
Attachment
~l t';.23/"cStr-eetLoF'o.-te, n77.s71 ~ Pnone2E1-47o-Q"ICF-c;.;2g'I-470~1590
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFT
31
9/8/2008
Appendix B
Brookglen Repetitive Flooding Analysis
Flood Protection Data Sheet
Name:
Property address:
, La Porte, TX
I. In what year did you move into the home at this address'?
2. What type of foundation does your house have'? U Slab 0 Crawlspace (please answer #3)
U Posts/piles (please answer#3)
3. If your house has a crawlspace or post/piles foundation, please indicate how high from grade
your lowest floor ofliving space is.
4. Has the property ever been flooded or had a warer problem?
DYes 0 No (if "no," please skip to question 9)
5. In what year(s) did it flood?
6. What was the deepest that the water got?
I lOver first floor: deep
U In yard only: deep
I I Water kept out of house or building by sandbagging or other protective measure
7. What was the longest time that the water stayed in the house? _ hours or _ days
8. What do you feel was the cause of your flooding? Check all that affect your building.
I I Drainage from nearby propelties 0 Stonn sewer back'Up
n Storm surge from nearby waterv/ays D Sanital)' sewer backup
I I Clogged/undersized drainage ditch 0 Standing water next to house
I I Overbank flooding from nearby ditch 0 Other:
9. Have you taken any flood protection measures on yom property'?
I I r-,.ioved utilities/contents to a higher level 0 Elevated all or parts of the building
U Regraded yard to keep water away from building 0 Waterproofed the outside walls
I I Installed drains or pipes to improved drainage 0 Built a wall to keep water away
D Sandbagged when water threatened D Othel~
10. Did any of the measures checked in item 9 work? If so, \vhich ones? If not, do you know why
they didn't work?
II. Do you have Flood Insurance?
DYes
UNo
12. Are you interested in pursuing measures to protect the proferty from flooding"?
DYes 0 No If yes, please refer to our website (www.floodhelO.uno,edu) for useful
information.
- Please return this data sheet by klarch 10--
Brookglen Area Analysis - DRAFf
32
9/8/2008
to
<3
o
P<;"
ce
(1)
t:j
~
(1)
p:l
~
e:..
'<
00
.....
00
1
~
w
w
/\ppend~x C
r'lliligation ~undirlg
H ala rd, Mitigation FI DOt! mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetit ive Flood Seve re FIe petitive I ncreas ed Cost of
Gra nt Program !'.5sistance IFMI\'1 Mitigatioll (rOM) Claims (RFC) loss j Sfll) (Cfmpliallce llCC)
(HMGJl)
Owners of severe Owne rs of ",,;vere
Who is the rep p.t"ti,~e Ims MFi P polic\' holders repetit';'ie loss 1'.11 ~JFI P pol icy
III olley for pp:'perties N F Ir pa~icy' h Dlder.; NFIP pDlicy 110lder5 with at lea s~ 0 ne pr,operties Iwlders.with the
currently in su re.d Haod claim currently imumd Ice ri der
under the NFIP by the NFIP
(1 f '.'olu ntary 111 ','OluntEry I: 1:. 't,lohm tarl~
;;qui:;it'c, acq1tisition
(2~ re~ocetion of " cqu isi Ii 0,-," 11J '.'olun,"ry m demolition'
tl1e st"J[ture 121 d{'molition~ aIQ uisition' ~ 1) vol Ull tar'/, m ~eloc.tion of Pmjens that wi II
(3:. er'Nation 131 relucation of 12) relocation of acq ui sition' the s'.ructu re' Ilring i3
Type of (,1~ recumlructiun stwcture;' ItruIlUre' {2) de;r"o lition' ': ~ ~ ele\'ation su b~tan tiall'i
p roj eets (5 ~ Constructing 1,11 eel"iation 13) slfllJctural.3nd ':~) relocation 0 t .;S'~ floodproofing damaged home
[Ert",h t','pes 01 151 dry flood non structural thE" structu re" (6:! ffih!'"m r ph','sical into wrren! code
minvr and l.ocalized pwrrfin g 11 Dill retrotitting locali led 1I00d compl iall [8
f1.ood con trot rpsider:t;at CDIl trol prcojens
,tw ctu~es
p rojem (7~ reconstructiDIi
Maximum For .eleva Ii.on: 11 rr
a mount may,imum;for
a'..ail'able recon struction: (on tact FEM,~ Contact FE M ti Crrnl3[t FEMl, CD~M[t FEMi\ ~.31J, D(}~
per $150,ODO
hOllSEhold
Non,
Fe dera I 25% lS% 25% cr.~ 11':'~.~ [II}",
.l..:.!<".
l11~tdl
How does CiJll tact Flood
the Cont.3n t~e c.ount',. Contact th e (ounty (ontact th e Stilte Co ntil[t the S!a tE' [untan the State Insurance
homeo.....ner underWTiter
i1pp1't'
': lhE Il')t ~'mt be d~HI re,trlct~ d ar. Op~11 ,D,;,(~
...: If tlh! 1)1 (.'J~~ct C;j~ts nl:xe than trl:": ;:! l1(,t~\:-d .~rnCrJnt.. thpll th,:~ rlon)~""II...'lh~( !n'J:r P.::"l ~ !'rf~ l'(~'ma ind1e r .;)f the T(lral: prClj~{[ cost-
)>
"tJ
"tJ
rD
::s
a.
X'
n
\0
......
00
N
o
o
00