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


                                                                              I(
                                                                              FY 1992 FINAL PRODUCT Task 34
                                                                                            Technical Assistance













































































j





0





I































                           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.


































                                          2












                                     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.

                                           3




                                    Flood Hazard Mitigation Study Area
                                                                              Chesterfield County
                                                                                   L






                                             ..qnover
                            00C   Ian



                           Powhatan
                                                   6d            ."N w-
                                                                           eni


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


             @-d
             $1)
             LQ
             (D















                                                                                                       A


                                  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.











































                                          5











                                   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







                                                  40

               Hd                                      per S         C                  Kin                             Johnsons CK


                                                       v

                                                                                                                    C

                            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.




                                                                                                                                                                                              8

















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


          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.



















                                          9











                          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.

                                             10









              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.

                                           11









         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.

                                          12














                                                                                              RE

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

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

                                         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.
                                             . . ..........  *.......
                                                  *  ...........*...
                                                    .......... ** .....
                     ............. .. ....... ***''* ........* ............
                       ..         ... .. .-* ........* ................
                                                  .....................
                                                ..........   .....
                                        ......... .... ...........-....
                                                      .........
                     .......... .............. . ...... ....... .






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























































































                                                                                                 13


















                                                                          .. ..... . . ..
                                        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;



                                            14












                                         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.

                                         16









         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;




                                           17









              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."

                                           18












                          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.


                                            19












         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.



















                                          20












                        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.











                                           21












                                       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.





                                             22




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,

                                                2









                   Flood Control Act of 1954,.as amended (Snagging and
                   Clearing of stream channels); ï¿½ 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.





                                            3









          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 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ 201, Pub. L. 93-288, as
                  amended, to assist communities in the preparation of
                  disaster preparedness programs; acquisition of flood
                  damaged properties under ï¿½ 1362 of the National Flood
                  Insurance Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448) ; and other
                  post-flood hazard mitigation measures under ï¿½ 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.



                                           4










                 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.


                                               5








                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.



                                             6










            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.

                                            7












           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;


                                             8









                    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.





                                             9










             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.


                                              10

 'A





 A









                     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.


                                              11









                  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.






                                           12

























                      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 ï¿½2.4 of the Flood Prevention and
          Protection Fund Regulation for compliance.       In accordance with
          ï¿½4.2 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






                                             2










               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 ï¿½4.2 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)










                                          3









                    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.










                                           4








          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