FLOOD03130 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Introduction For many years, federal, state, and local agencies associated with flood control and flood plain management have expounded on the merits of nonstructural measures as a method of reducing flood related damages. The nonstructural measures available include flood proofing, flood plain relocations, flood plain wning regulations, purchase of easements and transfer of development rights, TIle use of flood proofmg has long been regarded as a relatively inexpensive method of providing protection to structures in the flood plain. TIle April 1977 flood in theThg Fork Valley provided the impetus forfonnulating a flood damage reduction plan which used both structural and nonstructural measures to achieve a cost effective and socially acceptable solution to the flooding problems in the valley. Tug Fork Flooding History The Thg Fork Valley is located on the border of southern West Virginia and north-eastern Kentucky. The Tug Fork, a tributary of the Big Sandy River, begins in the coal fields of McDowell County, West Virginia, and flows northwest through a rugged mountainous landscape on its way to the Ohio River, The Thg Fork Basin is shown on figure I. The earliest recorded damaging floods in the Tug Fork Valley occurred in 1875. Since that time, at least 50 damaging floods have ravaged the Valley, TIle April 1977 flood of record in the Tug Fork Valley also caused severe flood damages in the Levisa Fork (a tributary of the Big Sandy River) and the Upper Cumberland River Basins in Kentucky. Flood damages in the ThgForkBasinamounted to 250 million dollars during the April 1977 flood, More recent flooding in May 1984 resulted in flood damages amounting to 117 million dollars in the Tug Fork Valley, Project Authorization As a result of the April 1977 flood, Congress enacted legislation within the Energy and Water Development Act of 1980 (p.L.96-367). Section 202 of the Act addressed the areas impacted by the 1977 flood and was unique for the following reasons, I) Section 202 provided legislative approval to imple- ment whatever measures were deemed by the Chief of Engineers to be necessary and advisable to reduce flood damages in the areas affected by the April 1977 flood. 2) Section 202 provided for the needed work to be accomplished at full Federal expense (without cost-shar- ing by a local sponsor). 3) Section 202 specified the April 1977 flood as the target level of protection for flood damage reduction measures. 4) Section 202 specified that the benefits of implement- ing such a flood damage reduction program would exceed the costs of the program, In effect, this provision elimi- nated the nonnal requirement for detennining whether a project generated a positive benefit/cost ratio, 5) Section 202 provided that the projects constructed under this authority would be operated and maintained by a local project sponsor, In effect, Section 202 of the Act provided a fertile Icgislativeenvironment for the fonnulation and implemen- tation of an array of both structural and nonstructural measures in the Thg Fork Valley, Project Formulation TIle initial fonnulation process was applied to a 140- mile section of the main-stem of thc Thg Fork and its tributary streams affectcd by the April 1977 flood, Under the Section 202 legislation, project fonnulation was based upon: I) cost-effectiveness of reducing damages for each structure or group of structures; 2) effectiveness in reducing flood damages; 3) social acceptability; 4) environmental suitability, TIle application of these fonnulation parameters result- ed in a program featuring structural floodwalls at several densely developed uman areas and the use of flood proof- ing and penn anent flood plain evacuations in the scattered linear communities along the river, To reduce the sociolog- ical impacts of flood plain relocations in an area where suitable housing is in short supply, the program included the development of several Housing and Community De- velopment (H&CD) sites for construction of replacement housing, Environmental Compliance In conjunction with the fonnulation of the flood damage reduction program, the potential environmental impacts of constructing the structural floodwalls and the sociological impacts of relocating large nwnbers of flood plain resi- dents were addressed in a basin-wide environmental im- pact statement (EIS), This analysis resulted in the inclu- sion of several key features of the overall plan including the