FLOOD04092 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8. Public InDut A. Public Input Workshop Public officials' concerns about flooding and mitigation don't always mesh with the concerns of private citizens. The concerns of citizens must be incorporated into the Pre-Disaster Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan. This method embodies the "bottom-up partnership" approach to floodplain planning. This process begins with a facilitated workshop that can sometimes last more than one day or one meeting. The workshop can involve as many as 50 people representing residents, business interests, public interest organizations and local and regional governmental agencies. The workshop agenda includes both the identification of the flood problem and assembling ideas for solving it. In the process, other community needs and goals are discussed and incorporated. B. Public Meetings It was thought that only a few of the affected residents may be able to participate on a planning committee that meets for more than one day. We felt it was important to let all citizens have an opportunity to review and comment on the issues. Therefore, a number of public meetings were held with approximately 150 invited to help map and plan the river corridor concerns. Between July 17th, 2000 and August 22,2001 we held a series of public meetings on the issue of hazard mitigation, specifically along the river corridors. The final public meeting on August 22, was an all day event in which citizens and agencies got to do an interactive exercise directed at identifying hazard concerns and possible solutions along the river corridors. People came and went during the day with approximately fifty participants. Parsons Engineering provided professional facilitation of these meetings as well as generating the work session tools and diagrams. 9. Action Plan A. Select Appropriate Measures Some measures have fallen out during the planning process. They will be obvious and easy to implement. However, the plan should still systematically review each proposed flood mitigation measure and discard it only after the following questions are answered in the negative: Is the measure technically appropriate for the hazard? Is the measure appropriate for the community's needs and goals? Is the measure affordable? Are the measure's benefits worth the cost of the measure? (In other words, will a community derive one dollar or more in benefit for every dollar it spends on a mitigation activity or project?) Will the measure comply with all local, state and federal regulations?