Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Goal 4. Maximize opportunities [0 convert current land uses to those that do <br />not suppon habitation. <br /> <br />Goal 5. i'v1aximize opportunities (0 educate and position flood-prone residents <br />to protect themselves. <br /> <br />In the graphic below, flood depths are shown for the 10'year flood (a flood with a <br />10 percent chance of occurring in any given year: deprhs from 2 to 4 feet), the 50, <br />year flood (depths range from 4 to 16 <br />feet), the lOa-year flood (depths range <br />from 6 to 18 feet) and the 500-year flood <br />(depths range from 13 to 25 feet), <br /> <br />on flood hazard maps, the Boone <br />planning committee examined possible <br />protection alternatives, Due to the <br />differences in the severity of the flood <br />hazard and the associated regulations, <br />the neighborhood was divided into two <br />sections: the floodway and the flood <br />fringe, The flood way is delineated by <br />FEMA and is the area within the flood, <br />plain that should be kept free of development so that flood elevations will not <br />increase more than a set limit. The flood fringe is the area outside of the floodway, <br />yet is still within the boundaries of the mapped special flood hazard area, <br /> <br />10.YearFlood <br /> <br />50.Year Flood <br /> <br /> <br />10o-YearFlood <br /> <br />5Oo.Y~rFlood <br /> <br />Severity oj flooding in Boone. <br /> <br />Flood Protectian Alternatives. Based <br /> <br />Among the mitigation alternatives explored were: <br /> <br />. Structural protection measures, such as construction of a levee, a floodwall, or <br />channel improvements. These measures "vere deemed infeasible due to the <br />severe depth of flooding and prohibitive costs. <br /> <br />. Non.structural measures, such as \vet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, and <br />e]evation~in-place. These measures \\'ere considered and rejected. <br />Floodproofing \vas not feasible due to the expected flood depths and velocities, <br />\.vhich make such measures very risky. Because elevation-in-place does not <br />alleviate the high risk to life safety or the costs of local emergency response, it <br />\.vas deemed impractical. <br /> <br />. Acquisition and relocation of 30 flood-prone residences and the nursing home <br />\.vas considered and accepted as a cost~effective measure that satisfied <br />multiple objectives, <br /> <br />Once the planning committee settled on the selected alternative, it became a <br />starting point for a comprehensive effort that included the following elements: <br /> <br />storm \vater management on a watershed basis; <br /> <br />capital improvements for drainage; <br /> <br />a mechanism to fund these t\VO programs; and <br /> <br />adoption and enforcement of stringent and consistent flood and storm \vater <br />management policies and practices to prevent the situation from becoming <br />worse. <br /> <br />~l:iT'in'm~' <br />: -.-;(4i:$i:;;I+0""_/+",'~' ~^ <br /> <br />. ..~ <br /> <br />---,_*w H0_ <br /> <br />j ''*'*^ <br /> <br />August 1999 <br />