Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Davis requested feedback on the Corps' 1996 proposed legislation that required local <br />authorities in Federal flood damage reduction projects to prepare a floodplain management plan <br />as a condition of the 65-percent Federal share. Should this be strengthened? <br /> <br />Ms. Cameron responded that if a comprehensive plan is required, it should be integrated with <br />other related comprehensive planning efforts. <br /> <br />Mr. Ellegood agreed and added that it should be done locally and in accordance with a set of <br />standards; it should be peer-reviewed and when approved, receive a Federal imprimatur that can <br />be used with authority. He also requested the ability to augment USACE personnel to speed up <br />the workload. <br /> <br />Mr. Davis thanked them for their comments and acknowledged that USACE has been operating <br />under funding and staffing constraints; however, he was not sure whether supplementing Federal <br />staff is feasible. <br /> <br />Mr. Hulsey suggested that developers be charged a fee that could be cycled back into the <br />USACE program to finance local personnel. He also recommended that Challenge 21 be <br />considered a watershed management issue rather than a floodplain management issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Davis agreed that Challenge 21 is a watershed-based approach that crosses many Federal, <br />State, and tribal agencies' activities. The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 will allow <br />the Corps to do watershed-level analysis. <br /> <br />Mr. Buchert expressed concern about the Federal Government planning for the whole watershed <br />and possibly circumventing local planning processes, autonomy, and financial control. <br /> <br />Mr. Wetmore also expressed concern about disconnects and inconsistencies in guidelines <br />regarding local planning across FEMA and other Federal agencies (e.g., USACE) programs. <br /> <br />Mr. Plasencia remarked that implementing a sliding cost-share policy on disaster assistance <br />would encourage/reward good State and local floodplain management. He also indicated alarm <br />about some of the mapping suggestions he had heard today. He believes that the program, the <br />way it is currently designed, still needs to require detailed maps. <br /> <br />Dr. White asked Mr. Davis to comment on the extent to which he thinks the major Federal <br />agencies, which are involved with public works, environment management, and flood mitigation, <br />can work together on watershed planning and floodplain management. <br /> <br />Mr. Davis responded that the Government is committed to move in that direction, but it will take <br />some clear successes to speed the process up. <br /> <br />Ms. Lathrop expanded on specific areas for improvement: <br /> <br />. There should be consistency of terminology within regulations. <br /> <br />Floodplain Management Forom <br /> <br />37 <br />