FLOOD03130 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

use of textured surfaces and graphics on the floodwalls, use of the evacuated flood plain areas for replacement of wildlife habitat lost during consbUction of the floodwalls, landscaping of floodwall easements, and provision of the nonstructurai measures to eligible flood plain residents on a sbictly voluntary basis. These features have been very successful in the implementation of the Section 202 pro- gram in the Thg FOlK Valley. Project Implementation Upon completion, the comprehensive basin-wide plan was submitted to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Anny for Civil Works for review and approval in 1982. Based upon that review, the comprehensive plan was divided into 15 separate, geographically defined project areas that could be independently approved, funded and implemented. Since that time, three of the 15 project areas (Williamson and Matewan, West Virginia, and South Williamson, Kentucky) have been approved forimplemen- tation and are in various stages of consbUction, A total of 946 structures including 689 residences and 257 commercial sbUctures are being protected by struc- tural floodwalls in these project areas. Another 470 structures including 400 residences and 70 commercial structures are being protected by nonsbUctural measures in these three project areas. In accordance with the provisions in the Section 202 legislation, a local cooperation agreement (LCA) was executed with the local sponsorpriorto the implementation of each approved project area. The LCA required that: I) the local sponsor operate and maintain the con- structed project; 2) the local sponsor participate in the National Hood Insurance Program and enforce the required ordinances; 3) the local sponsor operate an approved Hood Wam- ing and Emergency Evacuation Plan in the project area; and 4) the local sponsor manage evacuated flood plain lands set aside for wildlife habitat in accordance with a jointly prepared management plan. Nonstructural Planning As discussed above, the nonstructura1 program consisted of the flood proofmg of eligible structures and the acquisi- tion of flood plain structures which could not be flood proofed under the program criteria. Both of these options were provided on a voluntary basis to flood plain residents in approved project areas. In all cases of the nonsbUctural program, potential participants were provided with the option of not participating in the program and maintaining their existing flood plain residence under the local flood plain management ordinance. In an effort to infonn the public about the features of the plan and the options available under the nonstructural program, a series of workshop meetings and public hear- ings were held at churches and schools throughout the lUg Forte Valley during the fonnulation process, The ongoing success of the overall plan and the participation rates experienced in the nonstructurai program have been a direct result of those early public involvement activities. Flood Proofing Options Under the nonsbUctural program, sbUctures located in the flood plain that would suffer damages to the fi rst habitable floor during a recurrence of the April 1977 flood were eligible for either voluntary flood proofmg or ac- quisitiolL Eligibility for flood proofing required that: 1) the sbUcture would suffer damages to the first floor or to mechanical systems below the first floor during a recurrence of the April 1977 flood; 2) the sbUcture not be located within the regulatory floodway (the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reselVed to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height); 3) raising the sbUcture to an elevation I foot above the April 1977 flood level would not place the first floor more than 12 feet above the ground surface; and 4) the structure was physically sound and could be raised safely. The method chosen for flood proofing was based upon engineering feasibility and cost -effectiveness. The options available for flood proofing included the following: I) elevation on a solid masonry wall foundation or wood postJbeam foundation or masonry pier foundation; 2) consbUction of a waterproofed veneer wall against the sbUcture with sealed openings at entrances; 3) consbUction of floodwalls or levees around an individual or group of sbUctures; or 4) consbUction of a replacement flood proofed struc- ture on-site. Although all of these options were available in the program, oniyoptions 1 (elevation), 2 (veneer wall), and 4 (replacement flood proofed structure) were implemented in the program. Only structure elevation and the veneer wall project are discussed in this report. Based upon research of flood proofing techniques, it was decided that elevated structures would allow flooding of the enclosed area beneath the raised first floor. In those cases where the cost to flood proof an eligible residential sbUcture, plus the standard relocation benefits, 3