(a) Based on analyses and decisions under §§361.33 - 361.37 of this title the RFPG shall identify and evaluate potential FMEs and potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs, including nature-based solutions, some of which may have already been identified by previous evaluations and analyses by others. An FME may eventually result in detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and identification of projects or strategies that could be amended into an RFP as FMPs or FMSs.
(b) When evaluating FMPs and FMSs, the RFPG will, at a minimum, attempt to identify one solution that provides flood mitigation associated a with 1% annual chance flood event. In instances where mitigating for 1% annual chance events is not feasible, the RFPG shall document the reasons for its infeasibility, and at the discretion of the RFPG, other FMPs and FMSs to mitigate more frequent events may also be identified and evaluated based on guidance provided by the EA.
(c) A summary of the RFPG process for identifying potential FMEs and potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs in subsection (a) of this section shall be established and included in the draft and final adopted RFP.
(d) The RFPG shall then identify potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs in accordance with the RFPG process established under subsection (c) of this section.
(e) For areas within the FPR that the RFPG does not yet have sufficient information or resources to identify potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs, the RFPG shall identify areas for potential FMEs that may eventually result in FMPs.
(f) The RFPG shall evaluate potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs understanding that, upon evaluation and further inspection, some FMPs or FMSs initially identified as potentially feasible may, after further inspection, be reclassified as infeasible.
(g) Recommended FMPs will be ranked in the state flood plan and:
  (1) shall represent discrete projects;
  (2) shall not entail an entire capital program or drainage masterplan; and
  (3) may rely on other flood-related projects.
(h) Evaluations of potential FMEs will be at a reconnaissance or screening-level, unsupported by associated detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. These will be identified for areas that the RFPG considers a priority for flood risk evaluation but that do not yet have the required detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling or associated project evaluations available to evaluate specific FMPs or FMSs for recommendation in the RFP. These FMEs shall be based on recognition of the need to develop detailed hydrologic models or to perform associated hydraulic analyses and associated project evaluations in certain areas identified by the RFPG. Evaluations of potential FMEs shall include the following analyses:
  (1) a reference to the specific flood mitigation or floodplain management goal to be addressed by the potential FME;
  (2) an indication of whether the FME may meet an emergency need;
  (3) an indication regarding the potential use of federal funds, or other sources of funding as a component of the total funding mechanism;
  (4) an equitable comparison and assessment among all FMEs;
  (5) an indication of whether hydrologic or hydraulic models are already being developed or are anticipated in the near future and that could be used in the FME;
  (6) a quantitative reporting of the estimated flood risk within the FME area, to include, as applicable:
    (A) estimated habitable, living unit equivalent and associated population in FME area;
    (B) estimated critical facilities in FME area;
    (C) estimated number of road closure occurrences in FME area, when available;
    (D) estimated acres of active farmland and ranchland in FME area; and
    (E) a quantitative reporting of the estimated study cost of the FME and whether the cost includes use of existing or development of new hydrologic or hydraulic models.
  (7) For FMEs, RFPGs do not need to demonstrate that an FME will not negatively affect a neighboring area.
(i) Evaluations of potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs, as applicable, will require associated, detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling results that quantify the reduced impacts from flood and the associated benefits and costs. Information may be based on previously performed evaluations of projects and related information. Evaluations of potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs shall include the following information and be based on the following analyses:
  (1) a reference to the specific flood mitigation or floodplain management goal addressed by the feasible FMP or FMS;
  (2) a determination of whether FMP or FMS meets an emergency need;
  (3) an indication regarding the potential use of federal funds or other sources of funding as a component of the total funding mechanism;
  (4) an indication of any water supply source benefits;
  (5) an equitable comparison and assessment among all FMSs and an equitable comparison and assessment among all FMPs that the RFPGs determine to be potentially feasible;
  (6) a demonstration that the FMP or FMS will not negatively affect a neighboring area;
  (7) a quantitative reporting of the estimated benefits of the FMP or FMS, as applicable. This includes reductions of flood impacts of the 1% annual chance flood event and other storm events identified and evaluated if the project mitigates to more frequent event to include, where applicable, but not limited to:
    (A) associated flood events that must, at a minimum, include the 1% annual chance flood event and other storm events identified and evaluated;
    (B) reduction in habitable, equivalent living units flood risk;
    (C) reduction in residential population flood risk;
    (D) reduction in critical facilities flood risk;
    (E) reduction in road closure occurrences;
    (F) reduction in acres of active farmland and ranchland flood risk;
    (G) estimated reduction in fatalities, when available;
    (H) estimated reduction in injuries, when available;
    (I) reduction in expected annual damages from residential, commercial, and public property;
    (J) other benefits as deemed relevant by the RFPG including environmental benefits and other public benefits;
    (K) avoidance of future flood risk; and
    (L) prevention of creation of future flood risk.
  (8) a quantitative reporting of the estimated capital cost of projects in accordance with guidance provided by the EA;
  (9) for projects that will contribute to water supply, all relevant evaluations required under §357.34(e) of this title (relating to Identification and Evaluation of Potentially Feasible Water Management Strategies and Water Management Strategy Projects), as determined by the EA based on the type of contribution, and a description of its consistency with the currently adopted State Water Plan;
  (10) a description of potential impacts and benefits from the FMP or FMS to the environment, agriculture, recreational resources, navigation, water quality, erosion, sedimentation, and impacts to any other resources deemed relevant by the RFPG;
  (11) a description of residual, post-project, and future risks associated with FMPs including the risk of potential catastrophic failure and the potential for future increases to these risks due to lack of maintenance;
  (12) implementation issues including those related to right-of-ways, permitting, acquisitions, relocations, utilities and transportation; and
  (13) funding sources and options that exist or will be developed to pay for development, operation, and maintenance of the FMP or FMS.
(j) RFPGs shall evaluate and present potential FMEs and potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs with sufficient specificity to allow state agencies to make financial or regulatory decisions to determine consistency of the proposed action before the state agency with an approved RFP.
(k) Analyses under this section shall be performed in accordance with guidance requirements to be provided by the EA.
(l) All data produced as part of the analyses under §361.38 of this title (related to Identification and Assessment of Potential Flood Management Evaluations and Potentially Feasible Flood Management Strategies and Projects) shall be organized and summarized in the RFP in accordance with guidance provided by the EA and shall be provided in a format determined by the EA.
(m) Analyses shall clearly designate a representative location of the FME and beneficiaries including a map and designation of HUC level as determined by the EA and county location.

Source Note: The provisions of this §361.38 adopted to be effective June 10, 2020, 45 TexReg 3792; amended to be effective November 1, 2023, 48 TexReg 6360