FLOOD10351 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Planning Assistance - Many of the state's watersheds have an absence of an overall plan for addressing the rehabilitation or restoration ofthe channels and floodplains that have been eroded or flood ravaged. With the implementation of short-term and site specific projects, longer-term problems are created that might have been avoided, or at least minimized, if the initial activities had been undertaken with a broader perspective. In addition to taking a watershed approach, these plans need to consider the full range of interests in the watershed through a multi-objective approach. Funding needs to be provided for multi- objective watershed master plan activities and local floodplain mapping and mitigation planning. Planning assistance is needed for technical evaluations and development of stream corridor mp.nagement plans. Funding for Project Implementation - The single most common need identified in the questionnaire was the need for a mechanism to fund projects. Nearly every respondent said there are stream corridor and watershed needs that cannot be met with current resources. Many respondents suggested that a Statewide Revolving Fund Loan Program be established that could be used in a variety of ways. In addition to creating one or more funding mechanisms for stream corridor projects, an important component of implementation would be to expand the funding opportunities to allow the CWCS more partnership options with federal agencies, and to facilitate stream restoration and flood emergency response activities. Public Information - There are three very important components to information: 1) data, 2) technical training to interpret the data and make meaningful and wise decisions from that data, and 3) education to implement the data and take advantage of the technical expertise. A lot of the data that contributes to current watershed management decisions, at least in the floodplain portion of the watershed, consists of FEMA Flood Insurance Studies. A substantial portion of the data and maps were developed in the early 1970's and are lacking detail in many ways. The need to update this data is critical to design successfully for current development patterns, plan for future development activities, and prepare for the 21 st centu ry. Many communities cited a lack of technical expertise as a key problem in helping to plan and implement stream corridor improvements or stabilization. In addition, the responses indicated a need for educating administrators and landowners on the principles of floodplain management. Policy and Criteria - Several definitions need to be added to the current statutory language for floodplain management activities. These include defining the "base flood" for the state floodplain management activities, as that flood event with a 1 DO-year return frequency (1 % chance). This 1 DO-year definition is currently the state's regulatory design criteria. It is recommended that "critical facilities" be protected from losses by a 500-year return frequency (0.2% chance). "Critical facilities" should be defined as facilities necessary to maintain the health and safety of the public in a community, except for public road systems. In addition, a statewide flood detention policy should be proposed, requiring that increased storm runoff from new development activities shall be detained and standards should be provided for how that should be accomplished. This action will require establishment of a "baseline hydrologic condition" for the state's basins/watersheds. There is also a need to create a wetland banking/accounting and replacement program to assist in maintaining existing wetland conditions. The banking system would protect the state's existing level of wetlands and provide opportunities for the better management of future development Executive Summary - 2