FLOOD04000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Wednesday, May 2010:30 - II :45 AM Track 8 - Recovery - Moderator: Diane Calhoun WHY CAN'T I REBUILD? EMERGENCY PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR MECKLENBURG COUNTY FLOOD VICTIMS William R. Tingle and W, Dave Canaan Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, received record rainfall amounts 010 July 22 and 23, 1997, Rainfall and stream gages recorded all time record readings in several areas of the city. Over 300 homes and businesses experienced flooding and damage amotmts exceeded $12 million dollars. This event pressured Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services (MCSWS) staft'into making two key decisions; I)how to inform flood victims of the substantial damage requirements and available assistance and 2) how to determine which structures were substantially damaged The July 1997 stonn is the fIrst flood event that has produced substantial damages to structures since the city and county joined the NFIP in the 1970's, CharlottelMecklenburg was not declared a presid,mtial disaster, but the Small Business Administration (SBA)disaster loan program was enacted. Public knowledge of the substantial damage requirements and details of the SBA assistance programs (especially mitigation assistance) were practicallynon-existent MCSWS decided to quickly launch a public information campaign to inform flood victims of these policies and programs, The public information program llIilized four avenues to reach potential flood victims; I) information packets were mailed to over 2000 addresses identified in the County's GIS as being flood prone Ca separate information packet was mailed to flood insurance policy holders who qualified for the Increased Cost of Construction (ICC) coverage), 2) staff participated in several television, radio and newspaper interviews, 3) information packets were taken door to door in the hardest hit neighborhoods, 4) an education program was initiated for staff and contractors at the local building pennitting office, The effectiveness of the education program will be evaluated with a survey of flood victims. The results will be incorporated into future public relation and hazard mitigation plans. LOCAL FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING DURING POST-FLOOD RECOVERY Marshall Mabry, Donald W. Glondys and Christopher M. Barkley, P,E, This paper discusses the efforts of floodplain management training teams deployed by FEMA in th'~ wake of the March 1997 flooding in the 13 southern Indiana counties along the Ohio River. Recognizing that many of the affected 10(:81 govermnents were not prepared to comply with federal, state and local regulations governing floodplain management and post-flood reconstruction, FEMA deployed these teams to provide local pennitofficials with training in the application of the NFIP and the Indiana Depllrtment of Natural Resources (IDNR) f100dway development regulations The training teams consisted of certified flood insurance adjusters and personnel experienced in the NFlP regulations. The teams presented information on federal and state floodplain management requirements; informed community officials of their responsibilities for enfurcement; reviewed each community's pennitting process, or made suggestions for establishing one; described the criteria for determining substantial damage and the application of the substantial damage concept to floodplain management; and discussed lDNR's involvement in the floodplain management and floodway pennitting procedures, Each community official was given an information package containing a job aid, tools for determining substantial damage, and various wference materials, Only six of the 28 communities visited by the training teams had effective floodplain management procedures in place while the remainder of the communities had incomplete or non-existent floodplain management procedures. The majority of the local pennit officials lacked the background to proceed with reconstruction and either had questions about federal and state requirements and proceduTl:S or sought validation of their current procedures, Officials in these communities were receptive to the NFIP and IDNR training, While it is not possible to evaluate the effects of the training on the communities' long term efforts to comply with federal and state floodplain management regulations, the immediate effects of the training were positive, APPROACHES TO LONG TERM RECOVERY Pieter de Jong, AlCP Long-term recovCl)' from natural disasters requires multi-agency/organization cooperation, Success caIl be accomplished by several different approaches and long-term recovCl)' can enhance mitigation. This paper and presentation will discuss four recent approaches taken to address long term recovCl)' on recent disasters, These include: . The creation of a federal interagency task force for the recent flooding in Minnesota, North and South Dakota . North Carolina Disaster RecovCl)' Task: Force -- creation of a state task force following five presidentially declared disasters within a twelve month period, culminating with HWTicane Fran in September of 1996 . Development of a Regional Multi-objective Flood Mitigation Plan for the Vennillion River Basin in South Dakota in 1994 . Preparation of a community-based long term recovery plan for Arkadelphia, Arkansas, following the March I, 1997 tornado These case studies represent a range oflocal, regional, state and federal initiatives, They include a federal interagency task force approach, a state-level long term recovCl)' planning effort, a regional watershed-based flood protection plan, and a long term recovery plan prepared for a small community severely impacted by a disaster, The paper will discuss the effectiveness of these four long term recovery planning initiatives and suggest recommendations to improve the long term disaster recovery process,