8652M M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPRO
LASS PLAN FOR 1992
LITTLE ROCK.
8,65•
VING A REPETITIVE
FOR THE CITY OF
WHEREAS, the City's responsibilities for floodplain
management include adoption of a plan for mitigation of repetitive
losses experienced by property owners in floodplain areas; and
WHEREAS, the Repetitive Loss Plan identifies possible
activities which include outreach programs, flood protection
assistance, higher regulatory standards, drainage system
maintenance, flood warning programs and acquisition and
relocation; and
WHEREAS, The Federal Emergency Management Administration
(FEMA) has instituted a system of rating the performance of cities
who participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP);
and
WHEREAS, this rating system is used in setting flood
insurance premiums for the community; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the 1992 plan, attached as Exhibit A,
will be a part of Little Rock's submittal to FEMA for a rating;
and
WHEREAS, the plan utilizes existing staff and resources to
advise citizens of flood hazards, and to maintain the drainage
system to the maximum extent permitted by present resources and
budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. The Board approves a Repetitive Loss Plan for
1992 in a form substantially the same as that contained in Exhibit
A.
ADOPTED; February 18, 1992
U
ROBBIE E ,&I, A.�5
i
APPROVED: CITY CLERK
MAYOR
e5/
r4
■� m W&4m
Exhibit A
Repetitive Loss Plan
Synopsis
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has begun to
rate the performance of cities which participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This rating
program is patterned after' the fire insurance rating
program. The City began participating in the NFIP Community
Rating System (CRS) in 1990. CRS participation resulted in
a five percent reduction in flood insurance premiums
effective in October, 1991. Additional reductions in flood
insurance premiums are anticipated over the next several
years.
The NFIP insures over 2.4 million buildings nationwide. Two
percent of these insured buildings account for thirty -three
percent of flood insurance claims. These are Repetitive
Loss Properties. There are thirty -eight such properties in
Little Rock. A Repetitive Loss Plan is mandatory for
community participation in the CRS program.
The City's Repetitive Loss
properties and the reasons for
property. All of the buildings
prior to the Flood Insurance
which existed prior to the NFIP
located within the 100 -year
identified.
Plan identifies effected
repetitive flooding at each
identified were constructed
Rate Map (FIRM) structures
All of the properties are
floodplain boundary, where
The Repetitive Loss Plan identifies possible activities
which include outreach programs, flood protection
assistance, higher regulatory standards, drainage system
maintenance, flood warning programs and acquisition and
relocation. Development constraints are identified and
public input is solicited in order to select activities for
implementation in the Plan year.,
Nine activities were identified for implementation in 1992.
These activities were identified with proper consideration
given to economy and staff availability, and consist chiefly
of identifying, developing and /or disseminating information
on possible future activities. No budget for repetitive
loss activities has been submitted. Activities will be
undertaken utilizing existing staff of the Stormwater
Management Unit within the Department of Public Works,
Engineering Division.
Formal adoption of
order to comply i
submitted to FEMA
plan did not meet
Plan incorporates
necessary in order
the Repetitive Loss Plan is necessary in
with CRS guidelines. A draft plan was
in December, 1991. However, the draft
all of the CRS requirements. This 1992
revisions which were determined to be
to remain eligible for CRS participation.
THE CI'T'Y OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
REPETITIVE LOSS PLAN
1992
Introduction
There are over 2.4 million buildings insured by the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Less than two percent of
these buildings account for thirty -three percent of
insurance losses, due to the same property having been
flooded more than once since 1978. These properties are
identified as Repetitive Loss Properties by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There are currently
thirty-eight repetitive loss properties in Little Rock.
The City prepared and submitted a Repetitive Loss Plan in
1991 in accordance with the requirements of the Community
Rating System (CRS), a part of the NFIP. The Repetitive
Loss Plan is a part of the more cumulative Stormwater
Management Plan included in the City's Stormwater Management
and Drainage Manual.
Subsequent conversations with CRS representatives indicate
that the Repetitive Loss Plan (Plan) as submitted is not
sufficient to meet CRS requirements. A Plan is mandatory
under CRS guidelines, and unless the City meets this
requirement, Little Rock will be dropped from the CRS
program.
Therefor, City staff have revised the Plan, including new
information which will provide for a clear identification of
the problem, an inventory of repetitive loss areas, review
and selection of possible activities, public input and a
schedule for implementation. Because the work elements
identified in the 1991 RLP are being implemented and have
produced some of the new information contained in this Plan,
this Plan is submitted as the City's Repetitive Loss Plan
for 1992.
1
� r r r it r �■
76
Problem Identification
Site visits were conducted for all properties identified in
the 1990 FE14A List of Repetitive Loss Properties (RLP's) .
Site visits resulted in the removal of 14 properties which
either; a) no longer existed, or, b) had been removed from
the floodplain through structural controls, or, c) were
repetitions of other listings for the same geographical
location. The 38 Repetitive Loss Property listings were
field verified and reported to FEMA in December, 1991.
There are twenty drainage basins or sub - basins identified
within the jurisdiction of the City of Little Rock. Over 97
percent of RLP's are situated within seven of these drainage
basins. These seven basins include Fourche Creek, .Little
Fourche Creek, Downtown Area, Coleman Creek, Rock Creek,
Grassy Flat Creek, and Brodie Creek. Fourche Creek serves
as the major drainage feature for the metropolitan area,
with the remaining five creeks and the downtown area
identified as tributaries which contribute flow to Fourche
Creek.
The seven drainage basins identified previously have been
most impacted by urbanization. Structural and non-
structural controls have historically been utilized to
reduce or negate flood damage in these areas. For a
comprehensive identification of these structural and non-
structural methods, refer to the Stormwater Management and
Drainage Manual, Stormwater Management Plan and references.
The structural controls referred to above include both major
projects such as levees and pumping stations, channelization
and channel improvements, and also development criteria set
forth in ordinance and expressed through formal resolution,
as contained in the Little Rock City Code. Examples of
major projects include the Little Rock Levee, the Fourche
Island to Pennington Bayou Levee, and the current Fourche
Creek Flood Reduction Project.
Examples of development criteria include floodplain
setbacks, minimum floor elevations for structures in
floodplains, and the use of flood- resistance materials in
floodplain construction. A more detailed discussion of
development criteria is contained in the development
constraints section of this plan. A complete listing and
copies of applicable ordinances are contained in the
Ordinance section of the Stormwater Management and Drainage
Manual.
2
Inventory of Flood Hazard Area
A) Fourche Creek
Seven repetitive loss properties are located within this
drainage basin, which includes both the Upper Fourche Creek
sub -basin area and the Fourche Creek Bottoms.
Arnold Palmer Driving Range
4705 South University Avenue
The Arnold Palmer Driving Range is located within the
floodplain of Fourche Creek in an area of open bottomland
along University Avenue. This pre -firm structure is
commercial, consisting mainly of an office /concession
structure and several putting and driving ranges. While
lying within an area of historic flooding, this enterprise
benefits from open terrain conducive to a golf ball driving
range, as well as the site's proximity to central Little
Rock and the University of Arkansas Campus.
Hill
9820 Wilderness
This single property is adjacent to an unmapped area of
isolated flooding on Wilderness Avenue in southwest Little
Rock. This flooding results from runoff water ponding on
land adjacent to and west of the Hill property. Natural
topography provides a low feature which extends onto this
parcel. A small drainage feature meanders through un-
platted lands to the west, and flooding occurs as this
channel passes nearest to the residential area along
Wilderness Avenue. This pre -firm structure appears to be
the only structure suffering from flooding.
Ishmael
3 Curtis Cove
This property is located along an un -named trapezoidal
earthen channel which drains a residential neighborhood and
passes water into Fourche Creek, about one mile south of
Hindman Park. Topography in and around Hindman Park is such
that floodplain width and flow capacity are restricted,
causing backwaters to reach the vicinity of this structure.
A total of four pre -firm residential properties lie adjacent
to this channel, which was constructed and is maintained by
the City.
3
w: ■` ■■w w w w� w w
Pine Garden Apartments
6414 Baseline Road
M M w
Pine Garden Apartments are located along Baseline Road in
southwest Little Rock and within an unmapped portion of the
floodplain. Increased runoff resulting from strip
development along Baseline Road is suspected of causing
ponding in this area. State Highway Department improvements
are underway in this vicinity, including drainage
improvements which are expected to beneficially impact
flooding of this pre -firm apartment complex. Because the
floodplain is unmapped, it is not possible to determine if
other properties in this area are effected.
Singleton
18 Edgemont Drive
The Singleton property is located within the Fourche Creek
floodplain adjacent to Hindman Park. The park was purchased
by the City in an effort to retain the open land nature of
this area, which, due to natural topography, constricts the
flow of water passing along Fourche Creek and results in
some localized flooding (see Ishmael). This pre -firm
property lot slopes drastically, with the rear portion lying
within the floodway fringe. No other properties appear to
be affected.
Springer
7619 Stagecoach Road
The Springer facility is a pre -firm commercial building
located within the floodway fringe in a relatively
undeveloped area of the Fourche Creek drainage basin near
Interstate Highway 430 in western Little Rock. A
residential structure in close proximity to this facility
may also experience periodic flooding.
Stalter
6609 Juniper
The Stalter property is the last Fourche Creek basin
property identified. This pre -firm property lies within the
floodway fringe and is located in an area of dense
residential land use. The property is within 1,000 feet of
an unmapped floodplain area, and therefor it is difficult to
determine how many residential structures may be affected.
Some sixteen residences appear to lie within the floodway
fringe at natural ground elevation. No commercial
structures are identified.
M
We]
M
B) Little Fourche Creek
Only one repetitive loss
drainage basin.
Crawford
9912 Romona Drive
property is identified in this
The Crawford property is a pre -firm residential structure
located along this creek, with the entire property being
within the floodway fringe and the rear portion of the lot
located within the floodway. Two residential properties,
located on either side of this RLP, may also be effected by
flooding.
C) Downtown Area
Seven repetitive loss properties are located within this
drainage basin. of these, five are located in close
proximity and constitute a repetitive loss area. The
remaining two properties are individually located.
Clark - 2905 -2923 Barber Street
Fletcher - 2724 Barber Street
Hurn - 1011 East 30th Street
Reynolds - 1015 East 30th Street
Whitmore - 2804 Barber Street
These properties are located along Barber Street and East
30th Street. An unnamed tributary of Fourche Creek runs
parallel to and west of Barber Street. Twenty -one
residential and three commercial properties are located
within the floodway fringe in this vicinity. The Union
Rescue Mission is also located within the floodway fringe.
All are identified as being pre -firm structures.
Flooding along this unnamed tributary results from
backwaters of Fourche Creek proper, which lies south of a
railroad line forming the area's southern boundary. No
floodway is identified north of the railroad. A railroad
bridge provides for drainage, and also allows backwater
access to this area.
Compounding this situation is fill activity conducted on
property immediately west of Barber Street in this vicinity.
The result of fill in this floodway fringe is diminished
floodplain capacity and aggravated flooding of residential
and commercial structures along Barber Street and East 30th.
79
M: Wa„ M
•
Mitchell
2814 Commerce Street
The Mitchell property is located along
immediately west of Interstate Highway
Little Rock. This pre -firm property
feature which results in ponding and
runoff from the immediate ( two block)
Creek floodplain also reaches into thi:
and impacts a total of three residential
is abandoned.
Perry
1912 Security
Commerce Street
30 near downtown
is host to a low
some retention of
area. The Fourche
residential area,
units, one of which
The Perry property is located on Security Avenue. A large
open ditch passes north to south immediately west of this
pre -firm property, and drainage for this residential
neighborhood consists of mostly small diameter tiles, and
concrete and reinforced concrete pipes, passing runoff
generally west and south to the open ditch system, which
passes water along to Fourche Creek. A small diameter
drainage tile passes through this property and beneath a
corner of the dwelling unit, and this tile is inadequate in
size and lacking routine maintenance and cleaning. No other
residential or commercial property is identified as being
effected.
D) Coleman Creek
Only one repetitive loss property is identified in this
drainage basin.
Jett Ricks Realty
5503 8th Street
The Jett Ricks Realty property is located along this
feature, which is located north of War Memorial Park in
central Little Rock. This pre -firm property lies
immediately adjacent to an improved reach of Coleman Creek.
The structure rests within one foot of the concrete lined
channel. Channel improvements have provided for the entire
floodway and fringe to be contained within the lined
channel.
M
St
E) Grassy Flat Creek
Three pre-firm repetitive
this tributary of Rock
constituting a repetitive
Lohstoeter - 10 Arrowbrook
Sexton - S Stoneybrook
Siegler - 7 Stoneybrook
loss properties
Creek and in
loss area.
Drive
Circle
Circle
are located along
close Proximity,
The Lohstoeter and Sexton properties are entirely within the
floodway fringe, while the floodway fringe boundary bisects
the Siegler property. All three are adjacent to or within
the floodway. A total of fourteen residential properties
are located in the immediate vicinity which may be subjected
to periodic flooding as well.
F) Brodie Creek
Three repetitive loss properties lie within the Brodie Creek
drainage basin. Two are adjacent and owned by the same
family.
Wawak
9924 G 10000 Col. Glenn Road
These two pre -firm properties lie on either side of a small
and seasonally inundated drainage feature of Brodie Creek
proper just north of Col. Glenn Road in western Little Rock,
and are in close proximity to the floodway of Brodie Creek.
Two additional structures are located in this vicinity and
may be subjected to periodic flooding also.
Shook
3623 Shakelford Road
This property is situated on Old Shakleford Road. This pre -
firm property is a single residential structure in an area
of otherwise undeveloped land use. The property and
structure are bisected by the floodway, and lie entirely
within the floodway fringe.
7
r
M: no., M
G)
•
Rock Creek
A total of sixteen RLP's
drainage basin. Three
identified, along with a
from all others.
Holcombe
31 Meadowbrook Drive
are situated within the Rock Creek
areas of repetitive loss have been
sinale residential structure remote
This property is within the floodway fringe and adjacent to
the floodway of Rock Creek north of Interstate Highway 630.
Significant channel improvements are underway in this
vicinity which will have beneficial impacts on this and
adjacent properties. A total of some nine residential
structures may be effected by periodic flooding, due to
their proximity to the floodway.
Central Arkansas Supply - 1000 Rushing Circle
Junk House - 916 South Rodney Parham Road
Kirk - 7325 Kanis Road
Lusk - 921 Rushing Circle
M M
These four commercial properties are located along Rushing
Circle and Rodney Parham Road in central Little Rock.
Channel improvements are underway which have removed much of
this repetitive loss area from the floodway fringe. Five
commercial structures remain, with a total of seven
establishments. Substantial improvements to the Rock Creek
channel and bridge improvements at the Kanis Road crossing
will have a beneficial impact on all of these.
Davis - 420 Carpenter Drive
Lawson - 423 Carpenter Drive
Randazha - 424 Carpenter Drive
These three repetitive loss properties are identified in a
repetitive loss area along Rock Creek north of Interstate
Highway 630. These properties lie within the floodway
fringe north of Rock Creek in a residential area of some
nine pre -firm structures which may be flood - prone. Rock
Creek channel improvements extent to approximately this
point along the channel, and should significantly impact
flooding at these locations.
FOOB
Baskin
- 3407
Whitfield
Brown
- 3008
Walker
Ernst
- 3329
Whitfield
Farrester
- 3401
Whitfield
Forbush
- 3508
Whitfield
Gilbert
- 3518
Whitfield
Harris
- 3519
Whitfield
Reddick
- 3005
Dorchester
83
The eight remaining properties along Rock Creek lie in a
residential area west of Boyle Park. Boyle Park is similar
to Hindman Park, in that it was purchased by the City many
years ago to prevent development and preserve both it's
natural land use and open space for floodplain capacity.
Because portions of the floodplain remain unmapped in this
area, it is not possible to identify all of the structures
which may be periodically flooded. However, some thirty
residential structures are within the mapped floodway fringe
in this vicinity.
The Fourche Creek Flood Reduction project extends to this
area of Rock Creek, and should have a significant and
beneficial impact on flooding for these effected properties.
Flood Hazard Area Summary
,The Flood Hazard Area Table on the following page identifies
the 38 properties found on the FEMA Repetitive Loss Listing
Update. Site visits identified an additional 102 properties
which might be flood- prone, for a total of 140 structures.
Nine of the FEMA listings have been identified as
commercial, with two additional commercial properties
identified as possible flood -prone properties. The total of
eleven commercial structures constitutes eight percent of
the total of possible flood -prone structures, the remainder
being residential dwellings.
Site visits identified no critical facilities within the
repetitive loss areas. Only the Union Rescue Mission on
East 30th Street serves the public, and this two -story brick
and block structure is not isolated by high waters. Rather,
the lower rear - elevation of the facility lies within the
floodway fringe, allowing access through the front door and
the conduct of routine business upstairs during times of
flooding.
PI
84
FLOOD HAZARD AREA TABLE
LISTINGS BY DRAINAGE BASIN
A)
Fourche Creek Basin
Comm.
Res.
total
No. FEMA Listings(')
3
4
7
Additional Possible(2)
1
22
23
Total
4
26
30
B)
Little Fourche Creek Basin
Comm.
Res.
total
No. FEMA Listings
0
1
1
Additional Possible
0
2
2
Total
0
3
3
C)
Downtown Area Basin
Comm.
Res.
total
No. FEMA Listings
2
5
7
Additional Possible
1
18
19
Total
3
23
26
D)
Coleman Creek Basin
Comm.
Res.
total
No. FEMA Listings
0
1
1
Additional Possible
0
0
0
Total
0
1
1
E)
Grassy Flat Creek Basin
Comm.
Res.
total
No. FEMA Listings
0
3
3
Additional Possible
0
11
11
Total
0
14
14
F)
Brodie Creek Basin
Comm.
Res.
total
No. FEMA Listings
0
3
3
Additional Possible
0
2
2
Total
0
5
5
G)
Rock Creek Basin
Comm.
Res.
total
No. FEMA Listings
4
12
16
Additional Possible
0
45
45
Total
4
57
61
TOTAL FEMA LISTINGS
9
29
38
TOTAL ADD. POSSIBLE
2
100
102
TOTAL
11
129
140
(1)
The number of Repetitive Loss
Properties identified
in
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's list
of
repetitive loss properties.
(2)
The number of additional properties
which may be
flood -
prone and not appear on the
FEMA list
(i.e.: no
flood
insurance).
10
• •
85
Development constraints
Development constraints for floodplain development are
supported by the following City Ordinances and Resolutions.
A brief description of constraints follows. A more detailed
description of constraints can be found in the Stormwater
Management and Drainaqe Manual sections on Policy and
Ordinances.
Ordinance # 14,533 Floodway Easements
15,302 Flood Damage Prevention
15,303 Amending Floodplain Setbacks
Resolution # 7,071 Zoning 6 Floodplain Development
Ordinance #14,533 Floodway Easements
This ordinance provides that floodways shall be kept free of
incompatible urban development. Floodways shall be either
designated as drainage easements on plats, or dedicated to
the public at the option of the landowner. This ordinance
further provides that vehicular access easements shall be
provided adjacent to floodways, of not less than twenty -five
feet width.
Ordinance #15,302 Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance Number 15,302 applies to all areas of special
flood hazard within the jurisdiction of the City of Little
Rock. A development permit is required to insure compliance
with this ordinance.
General standards of this ordinance provide for new
construction and substantial improvements to be designed for
and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or
lateral movement of the structure. Construction materials
are required to be resistance to flood damage. All
electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air
conditioning must be designed to prevent flood water from
entering or accumulating in the unit during flooding.
All new and replacement water " supply systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters, and sanitary sewers must in addition include
provisions to prevent discharge from the systems into flood
waters. All on -site waste disposal systems must also be
designed to prevent impairment to them, or contamination
from them, during flooding.
11
M
Specific standards are applicable to all areas of special
flood hazard. These include new and substantial
improvements. Residential structures are required to have
their lowest floor elevated at or above the base flood
elevation. Non - residential construction must be similarly
elevated, or be water -tight below the base flood elevation.
Minimum criteria are provided for enclosures constructed
below the base flood elevation.
Manufactured homes must be elevated or anchored to resist
flotation, collapse or lateral movement. Subdivisions are
included in the ordinance.
In areas of shallow flooding, all new or substantially
improved construction is required to have the lowest floor
elevated above the highest adjacent grade by at least as
high as the depth number specified on the appropriate FIRM
map, or at least two feet if no number is indicated.
Adequate drainage paths must be provided around structures
on slopes to guide flood waters away from proposed
structures.
Floodway provisions in this ordinance provide that
encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new
construction, substantial improvements, and other
development unless it has been established by a Professional
Engineer that no increase in base flood discharge levels
will result. Floodway revisions are not allowed if those
revisions would produce adverse impacts on flood heights.
ordinance Number 15,303 Floodplain Setbacks
This ordinance provides that no structure shall be closer
than 25 feet from the floodway line. Uses with a low danger
potential are permitted within the 25 foot set -back,
including loading and parking areas, open storage, and
public and private recreational uses. Floodways are
required to be kept free of structural involvement,
including fences, open storage, parking or other impediments
to flow. Provisions are made for exceptions, and for
cantilever construction over the floodway. Columns and
piling are expressly forbidden.
Resolution 7,071
This resolution provides that re- zoning of designated
floodways shall be avoided unless such re- zoning is deemed
compatible with the drainage function of such floodways.
Floodway fringe is excluded from the intent of this
resolution, as such areas are considered suitable for urban
development provided that necessary flood - proofing is
accomplished.
12
an
Review of Possible Activities
A repetitive loss plan should have the basic goal of
reducing flood damage to the maximum extent possible.
Objectives in attaining this goal include reducing the
hazards associated with flooding and the loss of life, and
reducing property damage associated with flooding. These
objectives must be attained through activities which are
both feasible in economic and social costs as well as
practical in their ability to be implemented and achieve the
goals and objectives of the plan.
Before possible activities can be determined, it is
necessary to make several assumptions. First, the Fourche
Creek Flood Reduction Project, a joint effort of the City
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is currently in the
construction phase. This nearly S30 million project will
have a tremendous impact on stormwater management, including
repetitive loss properties. It can be assumed that staff
efforts will be targeted toward floodplain identification
and mapping activities resulting from modifications to the
floodplain. Activities of the repetitive loss plan should
therefor not be labor - intensive.
A second assumption is that little additional municipal
revenues will be made available for repetitive loss
activities. A city -wide election in late 1991 to raise
revenue for (among other things) drainage improvements was
overwhelmingly defeated by the voters of Little Rock. As a
result, funding for any activities will necessarily be
limited to currently available and undedicated revenue
sources.
A third assumption is that regulatory programs, such as the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) will take
precedence over repetitive loss planning activities.
The Community Rating System (CRS), of which
Loss Plan is a part, provides some dividends
that participation and credit activities
insurance premiums for effected properties.
is therefor assumed to be associated with
which can be accomplished through the Repetit
the Repetitive
to the City in
reduce flood
Some priority
CRS activities
ive Loss Plan.
In summary, activities which will accomplish NFIP and NPDES
requirements, and also adapt themselves to a repetitive loss
plan, would likely receive highest priority. CRS activities
which solicit credit and reduce flood insurance premiums
would also be likely to receive some priority. Repetitive
Loss Plan activities which require inordinate staff time to
accomplish and place additional financial burdens on the
City would likely not be approved for implementation. The
remainder of this section will identify current activities
and explore possible CRS program activities for 1992.
13
8'7
J
Outreach Programs
Possible activities
Outreach activities can take various forms, including
correspondence, electronic media, newspaper advertisements,
newsletters, flyers, and notices included with municipal
utility bills.
Information can include the plan itself, information on
available flood protection assistance, historic flooding
problems and information on flood -prone areas, including
depth of flooding and flow velocities, information on flood
warning programs, and other information relevant to
repetitive loss properties.
Current activities
For 1991, an initial effort to contact persons identified on
the Federal Emergency Management Agency list of repetitive
loss properties was conducted. They were mailed a copy of
the communities' Repetitive Loss Plan for 1991, which
included information on each of the major elements included
in the plan.
Proposed activities
For 1992, a follow -up mailing of the 1992 Plan can be
conducted. After the 1992 plan has been distributed, a
mail -out survey could be conducted of repetitive loss
property owners to solicit input on the Plan. This input
would be included in the 1993 Plan update, now scheduled for
December, 1992.
A third activity could be to identify television and radio
stations which would air public service announcements
regarding flood protection assistance and flood warnings to
their audiences at the City's request.
14
88
r
�• • 89
Flood Protection Assistance
Possible activities
Possible flood protection assistance can include providing
information on floor elevations, data and information on
historic flooding, providing names of contractors and
consultants experienced and knowledgeable in floodplain
construction and retrofitting techniques, providing advice
on the selection of contractors and consultants, and site
visits to advise owners of appropriate protection methods.
Current activities
Flood protection assistance is available through the Office
of the Floodplain Administrator, Raymond Manis, at 371 -4852.
Mr. Manis is also the Community Rating System Coordinator,
and can provide information on this program as well.
The Floodplain Administrator can provide information on
floor elevations, data on historic flooding and other
similar information. information can also be provided on
how to select a qualified contractor or consultant to assist
in floodplain retrofitting or construction.
A site visit to determine appropriate protection plans or
compliance with applicable floodplain regulations can be
arranged.
Proposed activities
Proposed activities could include developing a list of
qualified consultants and contracts which can be provided to
interested residents of flood -prone areas. Building permit
records are available which identify consultants who have
prepared projects for permit approval and which are within
the floodplain. Contact with consultants to verify their
experience and inclusion on the list would be necessary.
An informational pamphlet which
select a qualified consultant
developed by staff and provided
15
provides advise on how to
or contractor could be
to interested residents.
Higher Regulatory Standards
Possible activities
Possible activities include regulations that require new
development to be protected to a level greater than the
minimum requirements of the NFIP's minimum standards.
Regulations could effect freeboard, foundation protection,
building improvement rules, protection of critical
facilities, preservation of floodplain storage, mapping and
regulating areas subjected to unusual flood hazards, and low
density zoning.
Current activities
Higher regulatory standards apply to properties located
within the Special Flood Hazard Area of the City. This area
includes all of the repetitive loss properties. Standards
are contained in the Stormwater Management and Drainage
Manual, and briefly described in the Stormwater Management
Plan. Regulations generally address floor elevations,
foundation design, floodplain capacity maintenance, repairs
and improvements to buildings within the floodplain, and
zoning and landscaping requirements.
The Floodplain Administrator can answer questions regarding
higher regulatory standards, provide references, and provide
copies of City ordinances applicable to floodplain
management.
Proposed activities
CRS participation and the NPDES permits program will make it
necessary to amend existing City Code, and perhaps adopt new
ordinances and resolutions regarding stormwater management.
As far as possible, staff will give due consideration to
higher regulatory standards which would meet the objectives
of both NPDES and CRS programs. No other activities are
proposed under this heading.
16
Drainage system Maintenance
Possible activities
Possible activities include keeping drainage channels and
retention basins clear of debris in order to maintain the
flood carrying and storage capacity.
Current activities
Drainage system maintenance is provided through the
Department of Public Works. No drainage area threshold for
public maintenance exists. Instead, drainage facilities are
constructed to Code requirements. Upon inspection and
approval of the City Engineer, all drainage facilities
constructed or existing on public lands, easements and
rights -of -way are maintained by the public.
Repetitive loss property owners should report all
maintenance problems to the Floodplain Administrator. The
Floodplain Administrator maintains a record of all problem
reports, and this record determines if additional
maintenance, or more frequent maintenance activities, are
warranted.
Proposed activities
The site visits conducted in 1991 indicate that drainage
system maintenance may be a factor in flooding at the Perry
property on Security Avenue. Stormwater Management Unit
staff can liaison with the City Engineer to determine if
additional maintenance and /or retrofitting measures are
applicable at this location. The results of this
investigation will be reported in the next Plan update,
along with any corrective action necessary which would
remove this property from the Repetitive Loss List.
17
l�
Flood Warning Program
Possible activities
Possible activities include
timely identification of
disseminates warnings and
occupants, and /or coordinates
Current activities
those which would provide for
impending flood threats,
information to floodplain
flood response activities.
River stage forecasts on the Arkansas River at Little Rock
are made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service, located at
the North Little Rock Airport. Forecasts of flash flooding
on State Capitol Drain and Fourche Bayou Basin are made when
heavy rains warrant. Use of Weather Search Radar (WSR -57)
to evaluate rainfall intensities over the watersheds assists
in early assessment of flash flood potential. River stage
forecasts, flash flood warnings, advisories and statements
are issued by the National Weather Service as conditions
warrant.
All forecasts, warnings and statements are issued and
distributed via Arkansas' NOAA Weather Wire, and by
telephone to the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office and the
Little Rock Police Department.
Proposed activities
A proposed activity for 2992 under this category would be to
liaison with the City Safety Commission regarding flood
warning and emergency response preparedness. Any
information gained in this exchange would be disseminated to
floodplain residents as additional outreach activities.
An
"ff3 M
Acquisition and Relocation
Possible activities
Possible activities include acquisition of flood -prone
property, relocation of floodplain residents, and the
clearing and removal of flood -prone structures from the
floodplain.
Current activities
Resolution Number 7,072 identifies and resolves that public
purchase is a key component of the community's floodplain
management strategy. This resolution states that funds will
be made available for acceleration of this on -going
acquisition program.
To date, acquisition has been limited to open space and
undevelopea properties located along drainage features and
floodplain areas. No relocation activities are historically
evident.
Costs associated with acquisition and relocation are
prohibitive, and much of the properties have been acquired
through donation, or as a part of comprehensive planning
activities associated with the Master Parks Plan, or in
association with larger projects such as the Fourche Creek
Flood Reduction Project. Drainage easements for the major
(100 year) and minor (10 year) storm event are provided for
through the plat and plan review process.
Proposed activities
No activities are proposed under this category.
19
Selected activities for implementation
Proposed activities identified previously have been itemized
and circulated to department heads for comments, suggestions
and approvals. The resulting approved activities will
become the selected activities for 1992. These will include
activities described in the previous year's Plan. A11
selected activities appear in the Schedule for
Implementation.
20
94
r
M
� 95
Public Input
Because of the deadline for submitting this Plan and
associated time constraints, public input is limited. A
copy of the Repetitive Loss Plan will be distributed to
repetitive loss properties, along with a survey form to gain
input into the planning process. Repetitive loss property
owners will be asked to return their survey form before
February 14, 1991. Responses received before close of
business on Friday, February 14th will be attached in this
section of the Plan. Responses received after that date
will be filed for future reference and considered during
subsequent repetitive loss activities.
21
I
Schedule for Implementation
Informational Pamphlet
on Procuring Consultants
and Contractors 10/1/92 12/1/92
Amendments Adopting Higher
Regulatory Standards 10/1/91 5/17/93
Security Avenue
Investigation 2/1/92 12/1/92
Liaison with City
Safety Commission 4/1/92 12/1/92
22
BEGIN
END
ACTIVITY
DATE
DATE
Mail Plan to Repetitive
Loss Property Owners
1/24/92
2/14/92
Solicit Comments on Plan
1/24/92
2/14/92
Identify Radio & TV
Stations for PSA's
2/15/92
4/15/92
Develop List of Qualified
Consultants & Contractors
2/1/92
10/1/92
Informational Pamphlet
on Procuring Consultants
and Contractors 10/1/92 12/1/92
Amendments Adopting Higher
Regulatory Standards 10/1/91 5/17/93
Security Avenue
Investigation 2/1/92 12/1/92
Liaison with City
Safety Commission 4/1/92 12/1/92
22