WSP01441 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

objectives or to better satisfy demands. Institutional constraints were treated in a similar manner. The framework study reflects an initial joint Federal- State effort. There was no direct involvement with the local in terests except through the State agencies which served as a collection point for any local input. Public meetings were held throughout the basin when the study was nearing completion but there was no real concern expressed. Since the framework plan has not focused on any specific project and is quite general, public concern or debates have not taken place. However, implementa- tion of plans for development of water and related land resources will require active participation by the public and all levels of government. As detailed studies follow the framework study effort, public participation strate- gies will become indispensable elements of such plan- ning. PLANNING CRITERIA With the objectives established for the investigation, plans were formulated based on the current and pro- jected demands for use and management of the water and related land resources. However, planning criteria were required to scale and to compare alternative ways that demands could be met. Functional criteria were based on a consideration of: The amount of resource use to satisfy a demand; adequacy of water supplies in terms of quantity and quality, and the amount of shortage tolerable over a long-term period; the extent of goods and services that would result from any alternate plan element; maintenance or enhancement of environmental factors; and some means for comparing competitive demands for the resources where encountered. Flood Control The general criteria adopted for control of floods and the prevention of losses caused by floods recognized the basic parameters of types of areas subject to flood, the amount of average annual flood damage projected over the long term, and generalized probabilities of flooding. The criteria recognized also that flood damage preven- tion could be achieved to varying degrees by structural and non-structural means. Structural measures for control of floods were con- sidered to be essential to the economic and social well-being of those urban areas where existing levels of flood damages are relatively high, extensive improve- ments of the flood plain have already taken place, and a considerable number of people are affected by recurring floods. For these areas, structural measures were formu- lated to provide, as a minimum, protection against floods having an exceedance frequency of 200 years. If, for economic or physical reasons, the protection target levels could not be attained, a quantitative as well as a qualitative evaluation was made to assess the conse- 70 quences of actions to implement structural measures providing less than the stated target level of protection. This criteria does not preclude the use of flood plain land use regulation in conjunction with structural measures as a means of limiting future damage levels. In the urban areas where the flood problem is currently relatively minor, as defined by the parameters previously outlined, non-structural measures would gen- erally be adopted in order to keep the problem from increasing in intensity over the future projection period. However, in some urban areas, it may be more economi- cal and in the best interest of certain communities to intensify the use of flood plains and to provide structural measures, together with some form of flood plain regulation, to minimize flood hazards. For these areas, judgments were made as to the applicability of structural and non structural measures. In agricultural flood plain areas, reduction of flood damages by 50 to 70 percent was considered a reason- able and desirable objective. However, in some special cases, such as high-value agricultural areas, the target damage reduction levels would be dictated by the special considerations. The applicability of structural and non- structural measures in rural areas was determined by such basic indices as value of the areas, flood damages being sustained, and the economic and social need for maintaining these areas at their current productive capability levels, or at some enhanced level. Generally, control of floods over relatively long reaches of principal streams would be accomplished by reservoir regulation of high flows, but in some instances channelization may be required to meet desirable objec- tives. In some urban areas, reservoir control would have to be complemented by local protection works, flood- plain regulation, or both. The outputs from developments for flood control and flood damage prevention are measured in terms of annual flood losses preven ted, areas protected and managed, and enhancement values created. In relation- ship to other functional water resource developments, structural measures for flood control would be competi- tive only with some form of preservation of the existing environment. Management of flood plains can also affect the existing environment. Generally, con trol of flood flows is nonconsumptive and is, therefore, compatible with all other in-stream functions. Erosion Data that give an indication of the magnitude of erosion problems in the basin are limited to general quantification of sediment yields and streambank and gully erosion which are expressed in terms of acres and bank miles affected and damages sustained. Alleviation of erosion problems would be accom- plished by grade stabilization structures, river bank