My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD06289
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
FLOOD06289
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:08:31 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:09:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Floodplain Management in the United States An Assessment Report Volume 1
Date
1/1/1992
Prepared For
The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force
Prepared By
The Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, CU Boulder
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />ing during their 15- to 50-year life span. Even so, they are more cost-effective <br />than large structures, such as groin fields or segmented offshore breakwaters. <br />These structures can also build or increase beach width as well as provide <br />protection, but erosion can occur downdrift if they are not properly designed. <br />Structures like seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments protect development, <br />but are not intended to renourish or \".iden the beach. Erosion can occur in <br />front of them because the natural movement of the shoreline has been affected. <br />Such structures as breakwaters and jetties, which are designed to protect <br />harbors and navigation channels from wave action or to stabilize inlets, can <br />also cause erosion on the downdrift side if they do not include a sand- <br />bypassing system. <br />Because of their high cost, few shoreline protection projects have been <br />built without federal assistance, although most coastal states and many com- <br />munities have participated in various ways. Some states, notably North Caro- <br />lina, have adopted policies against new structural shoreline protection projects, <br />opting to allow the shoreline to retreat naturally. Others, such as Connecticut, <br />discourage construction of new structural projects, but do not specifically pro- <br />hibit them. Still others, such as New Jersey, have active structural protection <br />programs. Some states have empowered localities to establish beach protection <br />districts with the authority to collect taxes to fund long-term maintenance <br />programs. Private landowners also use various techniques to forestall erosion <br />and reduce damages. These measures are necessarily low-cost and small-scale: <br />vegetation plantings, beach fill, breabvaters, groins, revetments, bulkheads, <br />and seawalls. <br /> <br />Land Treatment Measures <br /> <br />Land treatment measures reduce overland runoff from agricultural <br />lands to streams or other waters by improving infiltration of rainfall into the <br />soil, slowing and minimizing runoff, and reducing the sedimentation that can <br />clog stream channels or storage reservoirs. These techniques are most com- <br />monly used in agricultural areas. They include maintaining trees, shrubbery, <br />and vegetative cover; terracing; slope stabilization; using grass waterways; con- <br />tour plowing; conservation tillage; and strip farming. Some measures involve <br />building structures to retain or redirect runoff. Several land treatment meas- <br />ures involve little additional cos: 0 the fanner, and some, such as no till or <br />minimum tillage, actually red Ace costs. Technical and financial assistance for <br />the more expensive techniques is often provided through public sources, par- <br />ticularly programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Although the <br />impact of an individual measure is limited, extensive land treatment pro- <br />grams can effectively reduce flooding in small headwater areas. <br /> <br />ADJUSTING TO A <br />RETREATING SHORELINE <br /> <br /> <br />rVhtre relative sea level rise is accelerating, coastal <br />Jlooding and erosion will also acceleTau, plLuing bil- <br />lions oj dollars worth oj additional coastal properl)' <br />at risk. The nation will thus haDe the options qf <br />retreating from the shoreline, armoring it with pro- <br />Uctive measures, or providing beach nourishmRnt. <br />TIu lv'ational Park St!rvue's poluy is to allow natu- <br />ral ]orces to cut on tlu shoreline rather than trying to <br />prevent eroswn with structural devues. Tk state if <br />lvorth CaroliT/.a has tnken a similar starue. Some <br />federal agencus have limited the use oj structural <br />measures on federal lands, but wkn it is ecorwmi- <br />call.yjustifinhle and erwironmental?;' acceptable, the;' <br />will still construct projects to protect existing coasltll <br />develofrmeni. Likewise, many states limit stnu:tures <br />in undeveloped OT lightly deveWped cOaJtal areas, but <br />continue [.0 permit structural projects to protect exist- <br />ing development. The COaJtal Barrier Resources Act <br />excluded tlu use of federal funds in "undeveloped" <br />coastal regums. <br /> <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />Rtsroralio/1 0/ beach vegtli11ion. is one means 'if slowing bUKh <br />(lrmon. and transport <br /> <br />Be(lt;h gran planting by volun./m"s ro prt.fffl/f Ja,ld dunes, <br />,Vnvl.l1<1)'porl, A1asmchusdls <br /> <br />- <br />39 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.