Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Funding for Project and Planning Implementation. The single most common need identified in the <br />questionnaire was the need for a mechanism to fund projects. Nearly every respondent said there are <br />stream corridor and watershed needs which cannot be met with current resources. Many respondents <br />suggested that a Statewide Revolving Fund Loan Program be established which could be used in a variety <br />of ways. In addition to creating one or more funding mechanisms for stream corridor projects, an <br />important component of implementation would be to expand the funding opportunities to allow the Board <br />more partnership options with federal agencies, and to facilitate stream restoration activities. <br /> <br />Public InformationlTechnical Assistance. There are three very important components to infonnation. <br />The first is data, the second is technical training to interpret the data and make meaningful and wise <br />decisions from that data, and the third is education to implement the data and take advantage of the <br />technical expertise. Much of the data that contributes to current watershed management decisions in the <br />floodplain portion of the watershed consists ofFEMA Flood Insurance Reports. Most of the data and <br />maps were developed in the early 1970's and are lacking detail in many ways. The need to update these <br />data is critical to successfully designing for current development patterns, pIaning for future development <br />activities and preparing for the 21" century. Many communities cited a lack of technical expertise as a key <br />problem in helping to plan and implement stream corridor improvements or stabilization. In addition, the <br />responses indicated a need for educating administrators and landowners on the principals of floodplain <br />management. <br /> <br />Polity and Criteria. Several definitions need to be added to the current statutory language for floodplain <br />management activities. These include defining the "base flood" for theJiate floodplain management <br />activities as that flood event with a 100-year return frequency (1 percent chance). This 100-year definition <br />is currently the ,State's regulatory design criteria. It is recommended that "critical facilities" be protected <br />from losses by a 500-year return frequency (0.2 percent chance). "Critical facilities" should be defined as <br />facilities necessary to maintain the health and safety of the public in a community, except for public road <br />systems. In addition, a statewide flood detention policy should be proposed, requiring that increased stonn <br />runoff from new development activities shall be detained and standards should be provided for how that <br />should be accomplished. This action will require establishment of a "baseline hydrologic condition" for the <br />State's basins/watersheds. There is also a need to create a wetland banking/accounting and replacement <br />program to assist in maintaining existing wetland conditions. The banking system would protect the <br />state's existing level of wetlands and provide opportunities for the better management of future <br />development activities. <br /> <br />Recommended Attions. A need exists to draft a floodplain management and stream rehabilitation <br />program to provide a planning partnership between landowners and local and state government groups. <br />The program needs a funding methanism for watershed planning activities and project <br />implementation. Based upon the study findings, the project team recommends that a "revolving loan <br />J:und" can best meet the needs of many of the program objectives, and the loan fund was supported by the <br />jteering ~mmittee. <br />:;::: ? <br />