Flood hazard mitigation report for Chesterfield County

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

I(
FY 1992 FINAL PRODUCT Task 34
Technical Assistance

FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION REPORT

FOR

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

Prepared by the
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission

November, 1993

A Report of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's
Coastal Resources Management Program pursuant to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award
No. NA270ZO312-01

This paper is funded in part by a grant from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any sub-agencies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission staff
gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the staffs from the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Bureau of
Rivers and Shorelines, and Chesterfield County's Department of
Environmental Engineering. Without them this study would not have
been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pacre (s)
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

III. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
WATERSHED APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
AVAILABLE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FIELD SURVEYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

IV* CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ASSESSMENT 10
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
PRINCIPAL FLOOD PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
LOCAL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FIELD SURVEYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

V, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT OPTIONS * * * * , * , * , * * * , 19
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
PROPERTY PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
EMERGENCY SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
FLOOD CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Vi. ASSESSMENT OF DRAFT METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

APPENDIX A Virginia Flood Prevention and Protection
Assistance Fund Regulations

I. INTRODUCTION

Flooding is a natural event. Flood damages result when
structures are erroneously placed in a floodplain, or when
structures knowingly placed there are not designed to withstand the
force of flood water. The mitigation of flood damages occurs when
no new hazards are created, and when existing floodplain hazards
are eliminated.

Flood hazard mitigation is defined as a management strategy
that reduces flood damage. It is important to understand in this
definition, that the flood is not the hazard; the hazard consists
of the structures, property, and human life that reside within the
reach of flood waters. Without them, hazards do not exist; or are
at least limited to a natural environment that has largely adapted
itself for life within floodplains.

Historically the United States mitigation policy was based on
the construction of flood control structures. These structures
have provided significant protection. However, this protection was
not without a price tag. The cost of flood control is high, a
single dam or flood wall can easily exceed $50 million.

There are other costs as well. Some projects have altered
significantly the natural river environment. Some projects protect
one area by passing the flooding problem onto adjacent or
downstream floodplain areas. And finally, flood control structures
have encouraged development in flood prone areas so as to compound
the disaster when a catastrophic flood occurs that exceeds the
capacity of the flood control system. This summer's catastrophic
flooding in the American Mid-west is an outstanding, albeit tragic
example of this. Because of these factors, the Corps of Engineers
has modified its policies, and flood control structures in the
future will be fewer in number and much more carefully placed.

Over the past 30 years flood control experts have come to
recognize that other flood hazard mitigation approaches were
necessary; that a combination of strategies must be employed to
reduce flood damages. These concepts and ideas are slowly being
adopted into national flood protection policies as the general
population begins to accept the need to try new approaches. These
mitigation opportunities can be grouped into two broad categories.

1. Hazard creation minimization:

No, discouraging the development of flood prone areas;

0. minimizing the size of floodplain encroachments;

P. constructing in a manner to minimize flood damages;
and,

implementing watershed changes that will not
aggravate flooding.

2. Hazard reduction and elimination:

P. flood proofing individual structures;

0. elevating or relocating flood-prone structures;

0. modifying local drainage systems;

constructing flood modification structures; and,

b. the purchase of flood insurance.

As a package these strategies will effect reduced flood
damages. Broad implementation of these strategies is not currently
feasible due to financial limitations. However, the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and the insurance
industry recognize that mitigation is necessary to control
escalating disaster recovery costs, and consequently are developing
improved mitigation concepts for implementation. Using these
techniques communities and citizens should no longer be victimized
by floods, and through proper planning and budgeting flood damages
can be eliminated.

II. PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is twofold: to characterize flood
hazards within Chesterfield County and identify strategies to
address flood hazards; and, to assess the usability of the
Department of Conservation and Recreation's (DCR) flood hazard
assessment protocol. The project study area is shown on Map 1.

DCR's Bureau of Rivers and Shorelines (BRS) developed a draft
flood hazard mitigation protocol that the Bureau utilized to assess
flood hazards in the Rappahanock -Rapidan Planning District (PDC 9) .
The results of this assessment are contained in a draft report,
Flood Hazard Mitigation Report, Planning District Commission 911,
2/1/93. The introduction of the draft report describes the impetus
behind this work.

"In The Floodplain Management Plan for the Commonwealth of
Virginia published in May of 1991, one of the major strategies
was to begin flood hazard mitigation planning. The
development of regional flood hazard reduction plans will lead
to the elimination of many flood hazards. The implementation
of such plans will require the evaluation of a region's flood
damage history and potential; the development of strategies
that over time will reduce or eliminate the hazard; and the
implementation of policies that do not put more property at
risk or make the problem worse. It is the Department's intent
to pursue these planning activities with willing planning
district commissions and the localities within their
boundaries."'

A complete d flood hazard mitigation study may be useful to a
locality applying for federal or state funding for flood hazard
mitigation projects. The Commonwealth of Virginia has developed a
program administered by the Virginia Division of Soil and Water
Conservation (DSWC) called the Virginia Flood Prevention and
Protection Assistance Fund' (Appendix A) . This program is designed
to provide grants and loans to localities for use in meeting
matching requirements of federal programs that provide funds for
flood prevention and protection studies, projects, and activities.
A completed flood hazard mitigation study can be submitted with the
grant application as proof a locality has a thorough understanding
of local flood hazard problems and a commitment to addressing them.
This will increase a localities prospect of receiving approval of
it's funding request.

'Flood Hazard Mitigation Report Planning District Commission
9, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Bureau of Flood
Protection (now Bureau of Rivers and Shorelines) , Draft, 2/1/93, p.
i.

2
This program became affective May 9, 1990, but of this
writing, state budget limitations have prevented it's funding.

Flood Hazard Mitigation Study Area
Chesterfield County
L

..qnover
00C Ian

Powhatan
6d ."N w-
eni

... . ... ... .6'. cit,

@-d
$1)
LQ
(D

Legend Scale of Miles N
St@t. 0 ... d-y M.Nd,.1-
j[31..15 F@ C ... @, ....d., 0 20 40 60 80 Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, 1993.

The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission staff is
the f irst . PDC staf f to use and test DCRI s f loodplain hazard
mitigation process on a locality. The RRPDC's participation in
this project will provide feedback the DCR staff can use to
evaluate and modify the procedure and improve its usefulness for
PDC's that choose to perform flood hazard mitigation assessments in
their regions. In turn, Chesterfield County will receive a
completed flood hazard assessment that the County's staff can use
to assess it's floodplain management program.

Ill. PROCEDURE

WATERSHED APPROACH

DCR staff developed and performed the first flood hazard
mitigation assessment for PDC 9, a PDC composed of rural
localities. In contrast, Chesterfield County has significant areas
of rapidly developing and developed urban expanses. Uncertain of
the possibility of completing the entire County within the twelve
month grant period, RRPDC staff, with the concurrence Chesterfield
and DCR personnel, chose a watershed by watershed approach. Map 2
shows County watersheds. The study team agreed to complete as many
watersheds as time allowed. Watersheds were identified and
prioritized, and RRPDC staff, under the guidance of DCR staff,
completed a field assessment of each watershed in order of
priority.

Watersheds were prioritized based on three criteria:
population; the number of flood insurance claims filed; and the
number of repetitive losses experienced. Information on filed
claims, and repetitive losses was obtained from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) FEMA data reflects the period from January 1978 to
May 1993.

Table I displays the priority watershed criteria. The claims
filed column represents properties for which a claim has been filed
one or more times. The repetitive loses column shows the total
number of properties in each watershed that have filed more than
one approved claim. For example, 10 properties in the James River
watershed have filed flood loss related claims, and seven of those
ten properties have experienced more than one lose that has been
approved for payment.

Watersheds with higher populations, filed claims, and
repetitive loses received higher priority. Table 2 displays the
priority rankings of Chesterfield's watersheds. Field work was
performed for each watershed in order of priority.

AVAILABLE DATA

In addition to FEMA NFIP data cited above, other sources of
information that were useful in performing the flood hazard field
assessments included: FEMA's "Flood Insurance Study for
Chesterfield County, Virginia"; and, the US Army Corps of
Engineer's "Flood Plain Information" studies developed for the
Appomattox River, Falling Creek, Johnson Creek and Tributary,
Kingsland Creek, Pocoshock and Pocosham Creeks (tributaries to
Falling Creek), Proctors Creek, and Swift Creek.

Chesterrield County Watersheds
James River

Po white CK

Hd per S C Kin Johnsons CK

N owe

Timsberry CK

Legend
Jurisdiction Miles Oldto wn CK
Hydrography
Watershed 0 2 4 Prepared by: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, 1993

.M
. ....... ... ... .......
. . .......
Y ......
. .... .... .......
............ . ........ ............. . .
...... .. .. . ..... .........
................. .. .......
. ........................
. ................... .. ..
:: ....... :: . .............
............... .. . ......
................ ........... .
..................... ...
....... ... . ..........
X -P
. ........... .

ershed Population Claims Repetitive
Filed Loses

Appomattox 9,800 0 0
River

Ashton 9,000 0 0
Creek

Falling 98,000 4 2
Creek

James 7,000 10 7
River

Johnson 3,400 0 0
Creek

Kingsland 19,900 1 0
Creek

Oldtown 3,000 1 0
Creek

Powhite 16,600 1 0
Creek

Proctors 16,000 3 0
Creek

Swift Creek 9,300 2 0
(Upper)

Swift Creek 10,500 6 2
(Lower)

Timsberry 6,600 0 0
Creek I I

The "Flood Insurance Study for Chesterfield County, Virginia"
(FIS) , contains hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for selected
streams in the County. These analyses are used to delineated flood
insurance zones and base flood elevations on a series of maps,
IfFlood Insurance Rate Maps" (FIRM) , that comprise the County.
FIRMs are used for insurance purposes to assign actuarial insurance
rates to structures and contents insured under the National Flood
Insurance Program. Flood profiles contained within the FIS were
used in the field to assist in identifying structures within
floodplains.

.. .............
.................
...... ..........
............ . .....

Priorit Waters Priority Watershed
Rank y hed Rank T
1 Falling Creek 7 Swift Creek (Upper)

2 Swift Creek (Lower) 8 Oldtown Creek

3 James River 9 Johnson Creek

4 Proctors Creek 10 Ashton Creek

5 Kingsland Creek 11 Timsberry Creek
6 Powhite Creek-- F 12 Appomattox River

"Flood Plain Information" studies were developed to aid County
officials in making floodplain land use planning and management
decisions. The studies identify areas subject to possible future
floods through maps, photographs, flood profiles and cross
sections. This information, like the FIS's, is a valuable field
resource.

FIE-LD SURVEYS

Field surveys were performed over four days during the months
of June and July, 1993. The survey team assessed properties where
flood insurance claims had been filed, and where repetitive losses
had occurred. Also, structures shown to be in the floodplain from
maps contained in "Flood Plain Information" reports were assessed.
At each site, the survey team noted any flood proofing measures
observed and appropriate measures that could be employed. This
information is generalized in the assessment section below.

IV. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ASSESSMENT

COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION

HistorV3 Chesterfield County was formed from Henrico County
in 1749 and probably received its name from Lord Chesterfield, the
Fourth Earl of Stanhope. Prior to English settlement, the area was
inhabited by native American Indians of the Appomattox and Monacan
tribes. The Appomattox and Monacan Indians were part of the
Powhatan confederacy that dominated the region when English
settlers arrived at the beginning of the 17th Century. Colonial
settlements were established initially along the James River most
notably at Bermuda Hundred, Farrar's Island, and at the mouth of
Falling Creek where the first iron works in America was
established. Later, around 1700, French Huguenots settled along
the James River in the area of the present day Powhatan County
line.

The first commercial coal mines in America were constructed at
the headwaters of Falling Creek near Midlothian, and the first rail
line in Virginia (drawn by mules) was built to transport the coal
to Manchester on the James River. Some of the first cotton mills
in the South were established along the Appomattox River around the
villages of Ettrick and Maotoaca.

Military engagements erupted in Chesterfield during both the
Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Virginia Governor Thomas Jefferson
set up a training center for military recruits during the
Revolutionary War at Chesterfield Courthouse. Fighting occurred
between British troops and the local militia at the Courthouse and
around the coal fields of Midlothian. In 1862, during the Civil
War, Confederate troops were successful in preventing the U.S. Navy
from reaching Richmond when they were repulsed by fierce shelling
from a Confederate battery at Fort Darling on Drewry's Bluff.
Later near the end of the war, Federal troops were successful in
destroying County rail lines that provided coal to Richmond.
Petersburg fell under General U.S. Grant's siege, and shortly
thereafter on April 9, 1865 the war ended at Appomattox.

Since the Civil War, Chesterfield County has continued as an
intregal part of the region's economic and cultural makeup. Large
industries such as DuPont, Philip Morris, ICI America, Reynolds
Metals, and others, have significant manufacturing facilities here.
Today, agriculture and forestry activities occur primarily in the
more rural southern and western portions of the County. The County
has absorbed a large percentage of the Richmond Region's growth in
population. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, the County's
population was 209,274. Urbanization has spread from the City of
Richmond into the northern and eastern half of the County, and
continues to grow at a rapid pace.

'Information from, The Messencrer of the Chesterfield
Historical Society of Virginia, No. 1, February, 1982.

Physiocrraiphyl Chesterfield County is located in south-central
Virginia, partially in the Piedmont province and partially in the
Coastal Plain province. These provinces are defined by an
escarpment known as the If all line," which crosses the County in a
north-south direction. Elevations in the County range from 0 feet
in the east to 350 feet in the west. Chesterfield county is
bordered by the City of Richmond and Henrico County to the
northeast; Powhatan County to the northwest; Amelia County to the
southwest; Dinwiddie County to the south; the City of Colonial
Heights and Prince George County to the southeast; and Charles City
County to the east. The total land area of the County is 446
square miles.

The James River forms the northern and eastern boundaries of
the County. The river is tidal along the eastern portion of the
County and riverine where it forms the northern boundary. The
Appomattox River, which is a major tributary of the James River,
forms the southern boundary of the County. At its confluence with
the James River, the Appomattox River is tidal. It becomes
riverine as it progresses up the "fall line" on its westward
extension. The remaining streams in the County generally flow from
west to east and empty into the James or Appomattox Rivers.

Climate' Chesterfield County has warm summers, relatively
mild winters, and normally adequate rainfall. The County is
located well inland from the Atlantic Ocean, which has only a very
small moderating effect on the climate. Although the area is near
the mean path of winter storms, the Appalachian Mountains to the
west tend to lessen their intensity.

Mean annual temperatures vary slightly from year to year and
are mostly 550 to 600 F. Maximum temperatures of 900 or higher
occur on an average of about 48 days per year, and 1000 or more
only about every 3 years on the average. Minimum temperatures are
320 or lower about 80 to 100 days per year and occur on a few more
days in the rural parts of the County than near the urban areas.
A few hard freezes occur in winter, but temperatures of 00 or below
are very rare.

Precipitation averages approximately forty-four inches per
year, but can be quite variable over both long and short periods in
the area. Although rainfall is generally greatest in July and
August, it is often insufficient during these months because this
is the time when vegetation demands for moisture are greatest and
evaporation is highest. Thundershowers occur on an average of

'Information from Flood Insurance Study Chesterfield County,
Virginia, Federal Emergency Management Agency, September 3, 1992.

'Information from, Soil Survey of Chesterfield County,
Virginia, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service,
In cooperation with VPI & SU, July 1978.

about 37 days per year mainly in summer. Some are heavy and result
in considerable runoff. Hurricanes pass inland every few years
near the area and usually cause extremely heavy rains.

PRINCIPAL FLOOD PROBLEMS6

The history of flooding in Chesterfield County indicates that
flooding can occur in any season of the year. Major flooding along
the James River and the Appomattox River is produced by large storm
systems occurring over their drainage areas. The smaller streams
in the County are subject to flooding from smaller, more localized
storm systems, as well as from the larger storms.

Falling Creek, Kingsland Creek, Proctors Creek, Johnson Creek,
Ashton Creek, Swift Creek, and Oldtown Creek are tidal at their
respective confluences with either the James or the Appomattox
River. The effects of tidal flooding are insignificant, however,
when compared to riverine flooding in Chesterfield County.

Three of the five largest floods on the Appomattox River in
Chesterfield County occurred between October 1971 and October 1972.
Excluding the historical events of 1667 and 1771, the largest flood
on the James River occurred as a result of Hurricane Agnes in 1972.
Table 3 shows discharges and recurrence intervals of past floods on
the Appomattox River near Chesterfield County, as recorded at the
Matoaca gage, and compares them with selected recurrence interval
discharges for the ten, fifty, onehundred, and fivehundred year
statistical floods.

Table 4 shows discharges and recurrence intervals of past
floods on the James River near Chesterfield County, as recorded at
the Westham gage, and compares them with selected recurrence
interval discharges for the ten, fifty, onehundred, and fivehundred
year statistical floods.

The amount and extent of damage caused by any flood depends,
in general, upon the size of the area flooded, the height of
flooding, the velocity of flow', the rate of rise, and the duration
of flooding. The rate of rise and duration of flooding depend
largely on the time required for floodwaters to concentrate at a
particular point and on the duration and intensity of flood-
producing rainfall. Stream velocities during floods depend largely
on the size and shape of the stream cross sections, roughness
conditions of the stream bed, and the streambed slope. During all
major floods, high velocity flood flows and hazardous conditions
would exist in the main channel and in some portions of the
floodplain.

'Information from, Flood Insurance Study Chesterfield County
Virginia, Federal Emergency Management Agency, September 3, 1992.

. .............. .... ..

..... ........ ........
..... .. ....

Flood Discharge (cfs) Recurrence Interval
(Years)

500-year 76,000 500

October 1972 40,800 110

100-year 40,000 100

50-year 30,000 50

August 1940 28,000 40

June 1972 22,800 25

October 1971 21,100 20

April 1937 18,800 15

10-year 16,100 10

Damage from past f loods along the Appomattox River through
Chesterfield County and the upper portion of the James River along
the northern border was minor because of the topography and
physical characteristics of the floodplain. The eastern portion of
the James River and the extreme lower portion of the Appomattox
River have floodplains ranging up to several thousand feet in
width. These areas are sparsely developed at the present time,
with quarrying operations prevailing; however, the areas are coming
under pressure for development, particularly industrial and
commercial. The remaining streams in the County cause minor damage
primarily to residential structures.

LOCAL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Floodpla 'in management in Chesterfield County is accomplished
primarily through the County's "Flood Plain Management Ordinance".
Chesterfield County adopted the ordinance on February 23, 1983; the
ordinance has been revised twice, most recently on April 12, 1989
due to changes in the NFIP law. The program utilizes the flood
boundary delineations contained in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and applies
restrictions and performance requirements within floodplain zones.
Figures 1 and 2 show the flood boundary delineations and
accompanying zones.
. . .......... *.......
* ...........*...
.......... ** .....
............. .. ....... ***''* ........* ............
.. ... .. .-* ........* ................
.....................
.......... .....
......... .... ...........-....
.........
.......... .............. . ...... ....... .

...................................... .......................

.. ..... . . ..
T.@ P

.. .. .. ..... ........
.... ... . ... ........ X.`-..,
. . . . . . . . . . . . .......
...... ... . . . . . .

Flood Discharge (cfs) Recurrence Interval
(Years)

500-year 493,000 500

May 1771 375,000 210

August 1667 350,000 160

June 1972 313,000 110

100-year 310,000 100

50-year 241,000 50

August 1969 222,000 40

March 1936 175,000 20

October 1971 158,000 14

August 1940 151,000 13
September 1944 150,000 13

April 1937 146,000 12

March 1979 140,000 10

10-year 138,000 10

In general, the County ordinance includes the following
restrictions and requirements:

P. no new residential structures may be built within the
limits of the 100 year flood (i.e., base flood or A
zone);

P. new residential structures and improvements built within
B and C zones must be twelve inches above the nearest A
zone base flood elevation, and twenty feet away
horizontally from the nearest A zone base flood boundary;

b. no new nonresidential structures may be built within the
floodway;

No. new nonresidential structures and improvements built
within the floodway fringe of A zone must be twelve
inches above A zone base flood elevation, or -be
watertight up to twelve inches above the base flood
elevation;

BASE FLCOD

ZONE A
ZONE ZONE1 FLOCOWAY FLOO 0 WAY @FLGoolwZy, ZONE IZCNC-,
c S FRI N (3 E FRINGE 19
I STREAM

CHAN N E L

Ll M ITS0
Myr. FLOOO LIMITS OF
@-OCyr FLCOO

FLOOD PLAIN SCHEMATIC

FIGURE I

ac ZONE

ZONEC

c,ri ES T
70 N E A4
Zo tq E

70NE Az
ZONE A zo

Z--NE

ZON E

70NE C

FLOOD EGUNDARY M/-'-IP

FIGURE 2

new nonresidential structures and improvements built
within B and C zones must be twelve inches or more above
the A zone base flood elevation, or be watertight up to
twelve inches above the base flood elevation;

0. flood proofing applied to structures must be certified by
a registered professional engineer;

10. new mobile and manufactured homes are prohibited from A
zones;

b. existing mobile and manufactured home parks and
subdivisions located within A zones must file an
evacuation plan with the County;

existing mobile and manufactured homes within special
flood hazard areas must be anchored;

0. new mobile and manufactured homes within B and C zones
must be elevated twelve inches above the nearest A zone
base flood elevation and set back twenty feet
horizontally from the nearest A zone base flood boundary;

01 subdivision and new development proposals shall include
base flood elevation data;

No. new access driveways and improvements to access driveways
shall be elevated to the base flood elevation;

0. no fill shall be placed in floodplains without a County
approved subdivision or site plan.

Certain uses and activities are permitted in floodplains
subject to review and approval by the County. Generally these uses
and activities are related to agriculture, recreation, utilities,
material extraction, or are water dependent in nature.

There are approximately 250 flood insurance policies issued
for structures in the County". Although data are unavailable,
County officials indicate that there are far more policies issued
than there are structures within floodplains in the County. Many
policies have been issued for properties that may be partially
located in a floodplain, but where structures on the property are
located well above the base flood elevation. It is believed that
many mortgage lenders are requiring flood insurance for structures
on these properties to protect the mortgagee, despite the fact that
the structures are above the 100 year base flood elevation. When
asked, the County has attempted to assist property owners in their
efforts to convince lenders that no flood hazard exists, and that

'From NFIP Community Visit Report, Chesterfield County, VA, by
William Lesser, August 17, 1992.

flood insurance is unnecessary. To date, lenders have been
unwilling to drop insurance requirements for these properties.

A process exists called the Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA)
that allows for amendments to FEMA map boundaries when detailed
information is available that shows map boundaries incorrectly
place a structure or property within a flood zone. This is an
option land owners may pursue through Chesterfield County and DCR.

FIELD SURVEYS -

The survey team composed of RRPDC and DCR personnel visited a
total of thirty-six structures in the County that had been
identified from single and repetitive loss reports, and "Flood
Information Studies" for various drainage areas. Based on these
visits, several observations were made:

1. all structures observed appeared to have been constructed
prior to the County's adoption of it's floodplain
management program in 1983;

2. future flood damages for most structures could be
mitigated using one or a combination of flood proofing
techniques;

3. some sites were observed where the dwelling unit is
evidently above the base flood elevation and only
outbuildings and personal property located below the base
flood elevation (100 year flood) had received past flood
damage; and,

4. the approximately 2SO flood insurance policies issued in
the County does not appear warranted base on field
observations.

CONCLUSIONS

Chesterfield County has a strong floodplain management
program, the strength of which is reflected both in the
requirements of its ordinance, and in the limited number of flood
hazard structures observed on the ground.

The County's ordinance exceeds the minimum requirements as set
forth in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood
Insurance Program Regulations. Examples of important provisions
that exceed the federal minimum requirements are:

1. the prohibition of residential structures in f loodplains;

2. the twenty foot setback away from the nearest floodplain
boundary and the lower floor height requirement of twelve
inches above BFE;

3. the filing of an evacuation plan by owners of mobile and
manufactured home parks and subdivisions located within
floodplains;

4. the prohibition on placing new mobile or manufactured
homes in flood plains;

5. for substantial improvements to homes in flood plains
require a lower floor at least twelve inches above base
flood elevation.'

Structures that have experienced flood damage are those that
were constructed prior to the County's participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program beginning March of 1983.
Conscientious enforcement of the County's floodplain management
program will continue to ensure additional flood hazards are not
created. Once assistance programs such as the Virginia Flood
Prevention and Protection Assistance Fund are underwritten, the
County may find it worthwhile to seek outside funding to mitigate
existing flood hazards.

8Sec. 21.1-40(a) of the Chesterfield County Flood Plain
management ordinance defines substantial improvement as, "The
modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvement of
any kind to a structure requiring a building permit and/or use
regardless of its location in a flood plain district to an extent
or amount of more than fifty (50) percent of its value, in
accordance with the County Assessor's records, shall constitute a
substantial improvement."

V. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

There are a number of options to address existing flood
hazards. These options include, floodplain management
alternatives, options to protect structures, emergency services,
and flood control.

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

The County- already has a strong floodplain management
ordinance that will serve to control inappropriate development in
floodplains. Existing hazards and future development can be
addressed through other management options including:

1@ acquiring open spaces and easements in floodplains;

0. implementation of stormwater management strategies and
erosion and sediment controls that do not exacerbate
flood flows; and,

0. stream maintenance practices that retain their natural
ebility to absorb floodwater flows.

PROPERTY PROTECTION

Existing structures can benefit from a number of techniques
designed to mitigate flood damage through physical changes to the
structure. Some techniques to consider include:

0. raising the structure to some level (at least 12 inches
in accordance with current County code) above the base
flood elevation;

1@ relocating the structure out of the floodplain (at least
20 feet horizontally from BFE boundary as per County
code);

b. construction of free-standing barriers around the
structure;

11. dry flood-proofing such as the installation of
impermeable membranes and coatings on exterior walls and
one-way checkvalves on sewer lines; and,

b. wet flood-proofing such. as raising utility equipment
including furnaces, hot water heaters, and electric
service entrances above the base flood elevation.

Another non-physical technique is the purchase of flood
insurance. Flood insurance provides assistance in paying for all
or part of, the costs of repairing the flood damaged structure.
Although flood insurance is not the most desirable alternative
since it does not mitigate flood damage, it does relieve the policy
holder of the financial burden of making repairs to the damaged
structure.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Emergency service options help ensure a locality is prepared
for a flood event, and includes:

0. flood preparedness planning;

flood warning and response plans;

sandbagging;

0. evacuation and rescue; and,

0@ public health and safety maintenance facilities.

FLOOD CONTROL

Flood control options generally involve large scale
construction projects some of which are falling under ever
increasing scrutiny as to their cost effectiveness. Flood control
options available are:

10. levees and floodwalls;

0. reservoirs and detention ponds;

10. river and stream channel improvements;

01 control gates and backup valves; and,

1@ runoff controls such as terracing.

The floodplain management techniques listed above are
described in detail in the Department of Conservation and
Recreation's "Floodplain Management Plan", 1990, and a recent
publication, "Flood Proofing Options for Virginia Homeowners", U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, 1993.

VI. ASSESSMENT OF DRAFT METHODOLOGY

Flood hazard mitigation planning on a regional level is a
strategy recommended in the Department of Conservation and
Recreation's "The Floodplain Management Plan for the Commonwealth
of Virginia", 1990. DCRIs first flood hazard mitigation
plan performed for the Rappahannock-Rapidan Planning District
Commission (PDC 9), was still in draft form when RRPDC staff, under
the guidance of staff from the State Division of Rivers and
Shorelines, began the flood hazard assessment for Chesterfield
County. As such, a final methodology had not formally been
developed by DCR staff for RRPDC staff to utilize. The following
comments are intended to provide DCR with feedback that it may
utilize in the development of the program and final methodology.

0. The final program and methodology should be developed
with the knowledge that Virginia's twenty-one PDCs have
widely varying levels of personnel and expertise.

0. PDCs will require technical support (many times
significant support) from DCR to perform flood hazard
mitigation planning.

0. PDC staffs will benefit from some level of background
education pertaining to floodplain functions and values,
federal and state acts and regulations,- floodplain
management, and flood hazard mitigation strategies.

A flood hazard mitigation report outline containing
generic background text would reduce project completion
time and develop consistency among reports.

0. PDC staffs would benefit from a list of information
sources and reference materials for information useful in
writing the study report.

1@ PDC staffs will require significant field support from
DCR to perform field surveys.

0. Development of a field survey sheet listing various
parameters to look for and to record observations on site
visits would be a valuable tool.

0. Funding sources should be identified and developed to
underwrite future flood hazard mitigation projects.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Flood Hazard Mitigation Draft Report, PDC 9, Department of
Conservation and Recreation Bureau of Flood Protection, Feb.
1993.

Flood Insurance Stud Chesterfield County, Virginia, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Draft, December 1992.

Flood Plain Information, Falling Creek, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, US Army Corps of Engineers, Norf olk District, August
1972.

Flood Plain Information, Pocoshock and Pocosham Creeks, City of
Richmond and Chesterfield County, Virginia, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Norfolk District, July 1971.

Flood Plain Information, Johnson Creek and Tributary, Chesterfield
County, Virginia, US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk
District, September 1973.

Flood Plain Information, Proctors Creek, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District,
September 1973.

Flood Plain In-formation, Appomattox River, Chesterfield County
Petersburg, Virginia, US Army Corps of Engineer, Norfolk
District, March 1975.

Flood Plain Information, Kingsland Creek, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, April
1974.

Flood Plain Information, Swift Creek, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, July
1974.

Flood Plain management Ordinance, Chesterfield County, Virginia,
Department of Environmental Engineering, Revised April 1989.

The Floodplain Management Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Department of conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil
and Water Conservation, Bureau of Dam Safety and Floodplain
Programs, 1990.

"Flood Protection and Dam Safety." Code of Virginia, Chapter 6,
Article 1., Flood Damage Reduction Act.

Weaver, Bettie Woodson. "History of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
The Messenger of the Chesterfield Historical SocietV of
Virginia, February 1982, No. 1.

I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
I

VIRGINIA FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION ASSISTANCE FUND
I REGULATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

VIRGINIA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD

VR 625-03-00. Flood Prevention and Protection Assistance Fund

Statutorv Authority: S 10.1-603.13 of the Code of Virginia

Effective Date: May 9, 1990

PART I

GENERAL INFORMATION

5 1.1. Definitions

The following words and terms, when used in these regulations,
shall have the following meaning, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:

"Board" means the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board.

"DeDartment" means the Department of Conservation and
Recreation.

"Director" means the Director of the Department of
Conservation and Recreation or his designee.

"Flood nrevention or orotection" means the construction of
dams, levees, flood walls, channel improvements or diversions,
local flood proofing, evacuation of flood-prone areas or land use
controls which reduce or.mitigate damage from flooding.

"Flood z)revention or rrotection studies" means hydraulic and
hydrologic studies of flood plains with historic and predicted
floods, the assessment of flood risk and the development of
strategies to prevent or mitigate damage from flooding.

"Fund" or "revolving fund" means the Flood Prevention and
Protection. Assistance Fund, established pursuant to Article 1.2
(510.1-603.16 et seq.) of Chapter 6 of Title 10.1 of the Code of
Virginia.

"Local nublic body" means any city, county, town, water
authority, service authority or special taxing district.

"Studv,- lorolect, or act-ivitv" means those flood prevention or
protection measures carried out by the sponsoring local public body
that require the provision of nonfederal funds to suipport the
federal effort.

5 1.2. Authorit7

A. Section 10. 1-603. 19 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the
board to make loans and grants from the fund to any local
public body for the purpose of. ass isting local sponsors in
providing required matching funds for flood prevention or
protection, or for flood prevention or protection studies,
conducted by agencies of the federal government.

B. Section 10.1-603.13 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the
board to promulgate regulations for the administration of
the fund.

9 1.3. PurDose

The purpose of these regulations is to ensure the proper
administration of the fund through the establishment of policies,
criteria, conditions, and procedures for awarding loans and grants
from the fund to local public bodies.

PART II

ELIGIBLE STUDIES, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES

5 2.1. Introduction

Loan and grants from the fund shall be made for the purpose
of assisting local public bodies in providing required matching
funds for undertakings conducted by agencies of the federal
government. These undertakings may be either flood prevention or
protection studies or flood prevention or protection projects and
activities.

1 2.2. Eligible flood prevention or protection studies

Flood prevention or protection studies that are eligible for
loans and grants from the fund are those that are carried out by
federal agencies to provide information on historic or predicted
flood events; to otherwise assist in the assessment of flood risks;
or to provide information, support and assistance in the
development of strategies and plans to prevent or mitigate damage
from flooding, including protection of the environment. Eligible
flood prevention or protection studies include, but are not limited
to, the following:

1. U.S. Armv Corns of Engineers water resource development
studies specifically authorized by Congress and those
studies conducted under the Continuing Authorities program,
including, but not limited to, 5 205, Flood Control Act
of 1948, as amended (Small Flood Control Project*s) 208,

Flood Control Act of 1954,.as amended (Snagging and
Clearing of stream channels); � 206 of the Flood Control
Act of 1960 (Floodplain Management Services) for provision
of f loodplain information studies and reports, including
restudies; and 5 22 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1974 (Technical Assistance to States).

2. U.S. Soil Conservation Service water resources development
studies under the small watershed protection program
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954
(Pub. L. 83-566) and Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L.
78-534)); the River Basin Program (Flood Control Act of
1944 (Pub. L. 78-534)), including floodplain management
studies; and the Resource Conservation and Development
Program (Pub. L. 88-703, S 102 of the Flood and Agriculture
Act of 1962).

3. Federal Emeraencv Manaaement Agencv flood insurance
studies and restudies and studies required to design and
develop disaster preparedness and response programs.

4. Tennessee Vallev Authoritv assisted local flood damage
reduction and floodplain protection studies including the
provision of floodplain information.

5. National Weather Service studies of the feas'ibility of
installing local flood observation and warning systems.

6. U.S. Geoloaical Survev stream flow information on water
gage heights, discharge runoff, historic flood peaks,
flood travel times and other information needed for
planning.

7. U.S. Denartment of the Interior, Fish and wildlife service
environmental studies and impact assessments under the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, National Environmental
Policy Act, and the Clean Water Act 404.).

8. U.S. Derartment of-the Interior, National Park Service
assistance to local public bodies in carrying out river
corridor assessments and in developing plans to protect
greenway values through its State and Local Rivers
Conservation Assistance Program.

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Aaencv technical assistance,
through its wetlands program, to local public bodies for
maintaining or restoring the natural and beneficial values
A of flccdplains.

5 2.3. ElicTible flood prevention or protection Prolects and
activities

Flood prevention or protection projects and activities that
are eligible for loans and grants from 'the fund are those that are
carried out by or with assistance from federal agencies to reduce
or mitigate damage from flooding, such as the construction of dams,
levees and floodwalls; channel modifications; flow diversions;
flood proofing or retrofitting of structures; flood warning and
response systems; floodrlain evacuation and relocation;
redevelopment, acquisit@ion and open space use; information and
education programs; post-flocd mitigation; or development and
adoption of land use controls.

Eligible flood prevention or protection projects and activities
include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers water resources development
projects and activities carried cut under the legislation
cited under subdivision 1 of � 2.2 above.

2. U.S. Soil Conservation Service water resource development
projects and activities carried out under the programs
cited under subdivision 2 of S 2.2 above.

3. Federal Emeraencv Management Agency disaster preparedness
assistance program, under � 201, Pub. L. 93-288, as
amended, to assist communities in the preparation of
disaster preparedness programs; acquisition of flood
damaged properties under � 1362 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448) ; and other
post-flood hazard mitigation measures under � 404, Pub. L.
100-707.

4. Tennessee Vallev Authoritv assisted local flood damage
reduction and floodplain protection projects.

5. National Weather Service local flood warning systems
including the Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System
(IFLOWS).

6. U.S. Demartment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
consultation and recommendations for environmental
protection and mitigation measures resulting from a
proposed project or activity.

7. U.S. Denartment of the Interior, National Park Service'
assistance in carrying out plans to protect river corridor
greenways through its State and Local Rivers Conservation
Assistance Program.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Aaencv activities to maintain
floodplain natural resources and to restore degraded
resources.

!5 2.4. Ineliaible activities

Activities that are not eligible for loans and grants from
the fund are:

1. Operation and maintenance of f lood prevention or protection
projects, whether partially funded under the fund or
previously installed or completed by the local public body,
with or without assistance from a federal agency;

2. Direct or indirect support of local personnel or any other
operating expenses of the local public body; and

3. S'"Cudies, projects or activities whose primary purpose is
not flood prevention or protection (e. g erosion control)

.PART III

LIXITATICNS AND CONDITIONS FOR LOANS AND GRANTS

5 3.1. Conditions and limitations for loans

A. Loans from the fund shall be the primary means for
providing assistance to local public bodies under these
regulations in order to keep the fund viable.

B. No loan shall exceed 30!@ of the nonfederal share required
by a federal agency to be provided by the local sponsor.
The composition of local funds approved by the federal
agency for the required nonfederal -share shall also be
approved by the board as the local share of the project.

C. At least 751 of all appropriations from the General
Assembly to the fund shail be available for loans unless
otherwise specified in an appropria4t-ion.

D. No loan from the fund shall be for a period in excess of
20 years. . .

E. Each loan shall bear interest at the rate of 3. 0% annually.

F .The total outstanding loans to a local public body shall
not exceed 25% of the total amount of all appropriations
from the General Assembly to the fund, unless otherwise
specified in an appropriation.

G. Previous obligations incurred by a local public body
under-written agreements and assurances to provide its share
of nonfederal funds, which have not been fulfilled or
already obligated in the l.ocal budget, are eligible loan
items.

H. A lien shall be created against. any real or personal
property acquired with the proceeds of a loan from the
fund.

1. Any real property interest acquired with a loan from the
fund shall be dedicated to public apen space and recreation
or other compatible uses to prevent reuse incompatible with
the flood hazard. The local public body shall either retain
ownership of such property interest, or retain a perpetual
flood-olain conservation easement which limits the use of
such property to flood compatible uses.

3.2. Conditions and limitations for grants

A. Grants from the- fund may be made under special
circumstances to provide assistance to local public bodies.
The board may authorize a grant after examining the fiscal
capability of the applicant, including consideration of
past studies, projects and activities that have been
terminated because of the inabiliiCy to provide the local
share of nonfederal funds.

B. No grant shall exceed 50% of the nonfederal share required
by a federal agency to be provided by the local sponsor.
The composition of local funds approved by the federal
agency for the required nonfederal share shall also be
approved by the board as being eligible to satisfy the
funds to be provided by the local sponsor.

C. Not more than 25% of all appropriations from the General
Assembly to the fund shall be available for grants unless
otherwise specified in an appropriation.

D. The total of all grants to a local public body shall not
exceed 25% of the total amount available for grants in the
fund, unless otherwise specified in an appropriation.

E. Any real property interest acquired with a grant from the
fund shall be dedicated to public olpen space and recreation
or other compatible uses to prevent reuse incompatible with
the flood hazard. The local public body shall either retain
ownership of such pro perty interest, or retain a perpetual
floodplain conservation easement which limits the use of
such property to flood compatible uses.

3.3. Conditions applicable to all loans and grants

A. No loan or grant may be authorized under these regulations
unless the following conditions exist:

1. An application meeting the requirements of Part IV of
these regulations has been-submitted to the board.

2. The purpose f or which the loan or grant in sought is
one.that is described in these regulations.

3. The local public body agrees, and furnishes assurance,
as the board may require, that it will satisfactorily
maintain any structure financed, in whole or in part,
through the loans or grants provided under these
regulations.

4. If a purpose of the requested loan or grant is to
acquire real property, the board shall, prior to acting
on the request, require satisfactory evidence that the
local public body will acquire the real property if the
loan or grant is made.

B. In addition to the foregoing conditions the board may
require of a local public body such covenants and
conditions as. the board deems- necessary or expedient to
further the purpose of the loan or grant. These additional
covenants and conditions need not be identical among local
public bodies, and may include, without limitation, any or
all of the following, as the board deems appropriate:

1. The creation and maintenance of special funds for the
repayment of principal and interest on loans, or for
other purposes.

2. The granting and recording of liens on, or security
interests in, real and personal property to secure
repayment of principal and interes"C on loans.

3. The use of designated depositories for funds pending
their expenditure.

4. The establishment of schedules for the disbursement of
funds and the completion of projects.

5. The collection of rents, fees and charges from projects.

6. The procurement of insurance.

C. The board may, as it deems appropriate, consent to and
approve any modifications in the terms of any loan or grant
to any local public body.

PART IV

APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS AND GRANTS

5 4.1. Local _ipublic bodies eligible to apnly

Any city, county, town, water authority, service authority or
taxing district serving as a local sponsor and requi-red to provide
matching funds for flood prevention or protection studies, projects
and other act ivities conducted by agencies of the federal
government may apply for a loan or grant from the fund.

5 4.2. Required conditions before makincr aonlication

Prior to applying to the board the local public body shall:

1. Be participating in the National Flood Insurance Program,
so that its residents shall have the opportunity to
purchase flood insurance for future flood losses. And have
adopted and be admInistering land-use regulations that, at
a minimum, are compatible with the requirements of the
National flood Insurance Program, or be located in a
political subdivision meeting the above conditions;

2. Have entered into any necessary written agreement with the
federal agency endorsing the study, project or activity,
including provisions for cost sharing; or have adopted a
resolution of intent to enter into such agreements; and

3. Have formally adopted a resolution requesting assistance
from the fund and have satisfactorv assurances of local
support, funding, property acquisition and use, and project
maintenance and management.

1 4.3. Contents of aDplications

A. Each application shall specify whether a loan or grant is
being requested, the amount requested, how it will be used,
and whether a loan will be considered in lieu of a grant.

B. The application shall further describe in detail:

1. The area to be studied or protected including the
population and value of the property to be pratected or
affected;

2. Historic flooding data and hydrologic and hydraulic
studies projecting flood frequency and extent of
flooding of future flood events;

3. The proposed study, project or activity to be funded;

4. The planning process involved, including alternative
flood prevention and protection measures which were
considered and evaluated;

5. Locally significant natural and beneficial floodplain
resources and values that will be maintained, enhanced
or restored by the proposed activity;

6. The estimated benefit-cost ratio of the project or
activity;

7. An assessment of the applicant's ability to provide its
share of the cost of the federal flood control study,
project or activity, along with its ability to repay a
loan from the fund, or in a grant request, sufficient
information about the applicant's fiscal capability to
enable the board to determine the need for a grant
instead of a loan; and

S. Administration of local floodplain management
regulations including a copy of the most recent
Community Assistance Visit report prepared by or for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, if available.

C. The application shall provide informati on an the nonf ederal
funding schedule in sufficient detail for the board to
determine the amounts and dates when approved funds would
be applied.

D. The application shall include a formally adopted resolution
by the local public body requesting assistance from the
fund and providing necessary assurances of local support,
funding, property acquisition and use, and maintenance and
management.

E. The amzlicant shall attach to the application:

1. Copies of written agreements or an adopted resolution
of intent to enter into an agreement wi-@h the assisting
federal agency.

2. Copies of federal, state and local permits required to
implement the proposed study, project or activity that
have been issued, or a list of permits that were applied
for prior to submittal of the application.

F. Assistance in preparing the application is available from
the director upon request.

4.4. APPlication procedures

A. The board will consider applications for loans or grants
on a semiannual basis, in September and March of each year.
Applications shall be submitted to the board at least 60
days prior to the date when the application will be
considere*d. The applicant shall be notified whether the
application is complete within 30 days after it is
received. The applicant shall be given not less than 15
days' written notice prior to consideration of the
application by the board. The applicant shall have an
opportunity to discuss the application during the board
meeting.

B. Upon receipt of notice by the board the applicant may
submit a written request to delay consideration until a
future meeting if more time is needed to prepare to meet
with the board or if the situation has changed since the
application was submitted.

5 4.5. Review and action by the board

A. The board will consider applications using the following
criteria:

1. Whether a loan or grant is reauested. Loans will be
given priority over grants.

2. The applicant's ability t o pay for the nonf ederal share.

3. The amount of local contributions in relation to
requested state funding. Priorities will be given to
larger local cash contributions as an indicator of local
burden.

4. The level of multi jurisdictional involvement in the
study, project or activity in terms of joint support,
commitments and funding, including.joint applications
4
C'o the board for funding.,

5. The extent of prior local effort to deal with the
problems addressed in the application and with other
flood related problems, as evidenced bv other measures
which the applicant has implemented (e.g., flood warning
system, redevelopment, acquisition, public policies,
stormwater management).

6. Whether the proposed study or project provide for
permanent solutions to existing flood related problems
and minimize the need for additional measures or
excessive operation, maintenance and repair.

7. Whether the proposal is designed to prevent a f lood
related problem rather than solving an existing problem.

S. The anticipated achievement of multiple objectives and
benefits such as recreational opportunities, open-space
preservation, ecological enhancement, water quality
improvements, increased water supply, and other
environmental and conservation factors and needs.

9. The' number of innovative solutions to local problems
that can be transferred and utilized elsewhere in the
Ccmmonwealt-h.

10. The number of past studies, projects and activities that
have been terminated solely because of,the inability of
the applicant to provide the required nonfederal share.

11. The level of commitment to the administration of local
floodplain regulations as evidenced by the dates that
regulations were initially adopted, as well as by the
funding, staffing, administration and enforcement of
such regulations.

12. The implementation of other state policies and
regulations for flood prevention and protection; for
environmental protection; and for control of stormwater
runoff affecting the waters, floodplains, wetlands and
watersheds of the Commonwealth.

13. The flood history of the area to be studied or protected
including the- extent of the area; the flood-prone
population; the value of flood-risk property to be
afiected or protected; the magnitude and frequency of
past flood events; the resultant flood damages and
environmental losses; and the threat to public health,
safety, and welfare.

14. The estimated benef it-cost ratio and cost ef f ectiveness,
including overall benefits in excess of costs. Priority
will be given to those studies, projects, and activities
having higher ratios, and substantial indirect costs
and direct damages prevented.

15. The total amount of the re-auested loan or grant.
Priority will be given to less capital intensive uses
of the fund.

16. The future need f or a loan or grant to expand the
project to include additional areas. Priority will be
given to projects that provide a permanent solution to
the problem such as flocdDlain evacuation - and
relocation.

17. The likelihood for the provision of the federal share
of the costs for the study, project, or activity,
including whether federal assistance has already been
requested.

18. The expected life or duratlon of the study, project or
activity.

19. The overall benefit to the Commonwealth resulting from
the study, project or activity.

20. The percentage of required nonfederal contributions.
Priority will be given to studies, projects or
activities having a higher percentage of federal
contributions.

B. Upon receipt of completed applications and consideration
of the above criteria the board shall establish a state
priority list semiannually for the use of the fund. Loans
and grants shall be commingled on the priority list.

C. The board may authorize payments from the fund and may
establish a schedule of payments in accordance with this
priority list to help local public bodies meet their share
of the nonfederal contributions.

D. All authorizations by the board are subject to the
following limitations: (i) the avai lability of money in the
fund; (ii) the percentage of funds that may be allocated
for grants; (iii) the amount that may be approved for a
particular applicant; and (iv) the total amounts approved
for the semiannual period.

4 4.6 written agreements reauired for loan or grant recipients

Prior'to receiving any funds from an approved loan or grant,
the local public body shall enter into a wri@t-en agreement with the
board containing such covenants and conditions as the board may
require.

1 4.7. Availabilit7 of aviolications

A record of each application for a loan or grant and the
action taken bv the board shall be available for public inspection
at the office@' of the director and shall be presented to the
Governor and members of the legislature prior to budgetary sessions
of the General Assembly.

VIRGINIA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOA-RD
APPLICATION FOR THE FLOOD PREVENT !ON AND
PROTECTION ASSISTANCE FTJM

Please complete the following application. If reauested
information is not available or applicable, please indicate this
on the form.

The applicant should review �2.4 of the Flood Prevention and
Protection Fund Regulation for compliance. In accordance with
�4.2 of the regulation, prior to application, the local entity
making application must have satisfied the following criteria.
Please provide evidence of comDliance. in section II of the
application:

1. Participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.
2. Has entered into formal agreements with sponsoring federal
agency.
3. AdoDted a resolution formally requesting assistance from
the fund and have satisfactory assurance of local support,
funding, property acquisition and use, and project
maintenance and management.

Attach additional pages or obtain computer based form if needed.

Return completed application to:

Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board
203 Governor Street, Suite 206
Richmond, VA 23219-2094

ATTN: Bureau of Flood Protection

January 1991 Please print application using dark ink -or
type. This form has been prepared using standard word processing
software. If applicant supplies the Bureau with a diskette, an
electronic copy of the form will be copied for the applicant's use.

Application summary

1. Project Title
Local Sponsoring Agency

Mailing Address

Authorized Representative

Telephone Number
Chief Executive Officer
Title
Tele-chone Number

2. Date of Application

3. Amount of funding reques-'%--ed
Please check one of the following and fill blank if
appropriate:
Loan for _ years; or
Grant; or
Combination Grant/Loan for years

4. Sponsoring Federal Agency
A@ency Representative
Mailing Aadress

Telephone Number

5. Commonwealth Participation (please list all agencies,
agency representative, and whether their participation
has beer@ a commitment of funds, technical and
administrative assistance, or advisory)

6. Other Local Sponsors

7. Description of flooding problem to be corrected/ s tudied

8. Description of project or study products expected.

9. Total Project Cost 100-0.
Federal Commitment - -0.
Applicants Commitment -0.
other Local Commitment
Commonwealth Commi "'MentS
(non grant-lcan fund)
Grant-Loan Request S

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

1. Please attach evidence that �4.2 of the regulation is
sa-'Cisf led.

2. Project/Study Background

a. Project Area (current and proposed populations,
value of property at risk, critical features such
as hospitals or schools).

b. Historic flooding data (specific events, dollar
damages, lives lost, impact on homes and commerce)

C. Planning process used to determine project need.
include analysis of alternatives if appropriate.

d. Enhancement or degradation of activity on the
natural and beneficial values wi thin the f ioodplain.

e. Estimated benefit to cost ratio if available.

f. Description of resources applicant will use to meet
project obligation, including ability to repay loan.

9. Status of National Flood Insurance Program in
locality, include copy or most recent Community
Assessment Visit report form if available.

Attach non-federal funding schedule.

III. Othe r Supporting Documentation

1. Localities floodplain management programs. Provide a
description of the f loodplain management program
especially where activities exceed NFIP minimum criteria.

2. Localities flood control program. Provide history of
other flood control projects or studies impacting the
locality and the level of local participation.

3. Please attach copies of supporting studies.

-NOAA COASTAL, SERVICES CTR LIBRARY
3 6668 14111653 @5