Potomac Waterfront Flood Mitigation Study - City of Alexandria

More documents

Recommendations

Info

E LURAY AV E GLENDALE AV EARL ST N PEYTON ST CLIENT PROJ S WEST ST S PAYNE ST N WEST ST ROUNDHOUSE LA REVISION NO SCALE N PEYTON ST S FAYETTE ST LESLIE AV N PAYNE ST COMMERCE ST WILKES ST CAMERON ST S FAYETTE ST RICHMOND HY City of Alexandria DUKE ST BRADDOCK PL N FAYETTE ST N HENRY ST YEATON AL EMERSON'S AL PRINCE ST PRINCESS ST MAKELEY AL S PATRICK ST N PAYNE ST OLD TOWN CT FIRST ST S PATRICK ST N PATRICK ST KING ST S ALFRED ST GIBBON ST GREEN ST N ALFRED ST DOWNHAM WY JEFFERSON ST CHURCH ST Potomac Waterfron Flood Mitigation Study W:\City of Alexandria\15298470 - Lower King St\Task 3 \Report\Final\Figures\MXDs\F4-1 Fema_flood.mxd 0 1:12000 DES BY DR BY CHK BY N HENRY ST COLONIAL AV VERNON ST WYTHE ST S COLUMBUS ST WOLFE ST FRANKLIN ST KJM CJL MER FIRST ST MADISON ST PENDLETON ST S WASHINGTON ST ORONOCO ST N COLUMBUS ST WILKES ST S SAINT ASAPH ST 06/22/07 10/05/09 10/04/09 PORTNER RD SECOND ST POWHATAN ST N WASHINGTON ST ROSS AL S SAINT ASAPH ST S PITT ST W ABINGDON DR MONTGOMERY ST N SAINT ASAPH ST N PITT ST QUEEN ST CAMERON ST BASHFORD LA E ABINGDON DR FIRST ST TIVOLI PG PITT ME S ROYAL ST 0 250 500 Feet BELLVUE PL S FAIRFAX ST SECOND ST S LEE ST N ROYAL ST N FAIRFAX ST THIRD ST FIRST ST S UNION ST JONES POINT DR STRAND ST WHARF ST ALEXANDER ST CAPITAL BELTWAY Legend Railroad 100-year FEMA elevation (10.2 feet NAVD88) Buildings FEMA 100 Year Flood FEMA 500 Year Flood Datum: NAVD88 P o t o m a c R i v e r TITLE Calculated Flood Zone Compared to FEMA Flood Zones 200 Orchard Ridge Drive Gaithersburg, MD 20878 PROJ NO 15298592 FIGURE 4-1
Technical Analyses Support The staff identified the FFE and the lowest point of entry for each structure and also took photographs of the structures. Property owners were notified that the survey was taking place, but the surveyors were not able to gain access to the interior of most of the structures. If they were not able to access a structure, an FFE was estimated. FFE survey data were not obtained for all structures located within floodprone areas. If FFE data were not available for a structure, the FFE was estimated using available topographic data. Figure 4-2 illustrates structures affected by the nuisance, intermediate, and extreme flood events based on FFE information (if available) and topographic information. A summary of the survey data can be found in Appendix D as Exhibit 1. 4.1.2 Field Reconnaissance Several site visits were conducted throughout the course of this study. Detailed field visits were conducted on July 25, 2006 and July 23, 2009. Field visits were conducted to document the project area through photographs and field notes. First floor elevation data provided by the City were evaluated for reasonableness to help identify areas where additional survey would be beneficial. Assessments were conducted to determine where floodproofing would be appropriate. The field visits are summarized in Appendix D as Exhibit 2. 4.2 OVERVIEW OF CULTURAL RESOURCES CONTEXT Old Town Alexandria is enriched by a diverse concentration of cultural resources focused around the waterfront setting. The Potomac River serves as the backdrop and focal point of the City, which was originally incorporated in 1749. Alexandria is defined by, and defines itself by, its significant number of historic properties, including buildings and archeological resources. These resources, in conjunction with recreational spaces and waterfront viewsheds, enhance the quality of life for residents, commuters, and tourists, and are a highly-valued point of pride for the City. Accordingly, in reviewing the potential impacts that the flood mitigation measures could have on the City’s historic properties, the requirements and potential schedule and cost impacts related to aboveground and belowground cultural resources were considered. 28-JUL-10\\ 4-3
Page 2 and 3: F I N A L R E P O R T POTOMAC RIVER
Page 4 and 5: TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1.2 Assumptions
Page 6 and 7: TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES Figure 1-
Page 8 and 9: ac acre A/E Architectural/Engineeri
Page 10 and 11: TES Transportation and Environmenta
Page 12 and 13: SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 POTOM
Page 14 and 15: Introduction Factory and Strand Str
Page 16 and 17: Refinement of Mitigation Measures S
Page 18 and 19: 8.8 ft Figure 2-2: Flood Levels Stu
Page 20 and 21: Refinement of Mitigation Measures T
Page 22 and 23: Refinement of Mitigation Measures s
Page 24 and 25: Overview of Flood Mitigation Measur
Page 26 and 27: 3.1.3 Floodproofing Overview of Flo
Page 28 and 29: FLOOD ELEVATION BASE FLOW Overview
Page 42 and 43: N ALFRED ST MUIRS CT S COLUMBUS ST
Page 44 and 45: Technical Analyses Support resource
Page 46 and 47: Table 4-1: Repetitive Loss Properti
Page 48 and 49: Technical Analyses Support climate
Page 50 and 51: 5.2 CALCULATION OF PROJECT BENEFITS
Page 52 and 53: Economic Valuation (Benefit-Cost An
Page 54 and 55: Economic Valuation (Benefit-Cost An
Page 56 and 57: 6.1 FLOODWALL Structural Mitigation
Page 58 and 59: Structural Mitigation Measure Conce
Page 62 and 63: 6.1.3 Potential Impacts Structural
Page 64 and 65: VDEQ Section 401 Certification VDE
Page 66 and 67: 6.2.1 Description of Alternative St
Page 68 and 69: CLIENT PROJ RAMSAY AL SWIFTS AL S L
Page 72 and 73: 6.2.4 Permitting/Approval Requireme
Page 74 and 75: 6.2.5 BCA and Results Structural Mi
Page 78 and 79: 6.3.2 Assumptions Structural Mitiga
Page 82 and 83: CLIENT PROJ REVISION NO SCALE WALES
Page 86 and 87: Site Plan Approval Structural Mitig
Page 88 and 89: North Union Structural Mitigation M
Page 90 and 91:
Structural Mitigation Measure Conce
Page 92 and 93:
CLIENT PROJ REVISION NO SCALE S ROY
Page 94 and 95:
King Street Residential Structural
Page 96 and 97:
Waterfront Commercial Structural Mi
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
7.2 KING STREET Elevated Walkway Re
Page 104 and 105:
Figure 7-2: Elevated Walkway at Wat
Page 106 and 107:
Recommendations The elevated walkwa
Page 108 and 109:
King/Strand Street Intersection Roa
Page 110 and 111:
Figure 7-6: Floodwall behind Torped
Page 112 and 113:
7.7 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES Reco
Page 114 and 115:
Recommendations (USBC) and Internat
Page 116 and 117:
SECTION EIGHT: REFERENCES Access Fl
Page 118 and 119:
References Huber Technology, 2009.
Page 120 and 121:
Appendix A Initial Ranking of Poten
Page 122 and 123:
Appendix B Ordinance and Sandbag In
Page 124 and 125:
Exhibit 1-2. Sample ordinance from
Page 126 and 127:
5. The necessity to the facility of
Page 128 and 129:
Appendix C Non-Prioritized Measures
Page 130 and 131:
Figure 1: Duckbill Check Valve A ty
Page 132 and 133:
Relocate external electrical boxes
Page 134 and 135:
Last, Hurricane Preparedness inform
Page 136 and 137:
Potomac River Waterfront Flood Miti
Page 138 and 139:
Figure A1-12 Exhibit 2: Field Visit
Page 140 and 141:
Exhibit 2: Field Visit Summary - Ju
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Fig A11-1 Exhibit 2: Field Visit Su
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Figure A18-1 Exhibit 2: Field Visi
Page 154 and 155:
Figure 21-3 Exhibit 2: Field Visit
Page 156 and 157:
Figure 2: Screen shot from NOAA Atl
Page 158 and 159:
Potomac River Waterfront Flood Miti
Page 160 and 161:
38 40 38 4 6 40 34 28 14 30 30 40 4
Page 162 and 163:
46 44 38 44 42 40 42 44 44 36 22 36
Page 164 and 165:
48 44 38 36 38 18 46 42 38 42 26 22
Page 166 and 167:
CLIENT PROJ REVISION NO SCALE City
Page 168:
Table 4: Detailed cost estimate for
Page 174 and 175:
Exhibit 3: Various Elevated Walkway
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Exhibit 4-2: Elevated Walkway - Kin
Page 180 and 181:
Appendix H Berm
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Roadway Drainage Additional Data Ta
Page 186 and 187:
Appendix J Property Acquisition
Page 188 and 189:
Appraisals Based on data from Appra
Page 190 and 191:
Exhibit 2. Total Other Costs for Pr
Page 192 and 193:
Table 4: North Union Acquisition Co
Page 194 and 195:
Appendix K Floodproofing
Page 196 and 197:
Exhibit 2. Window Replacement Costs
Page 198 and 199:
Elevate or relocate the electric pa
Page 200 and 201:
Overview Potential Federal Funding
Page 202 and 203:
Table 1. HMA Funding Options by Pro
Page 204 and 205:
Hazard Mitigation Assistance The De
Page 206 and 207:
program comparisons (continued) ELI
Page 208:
program information GovDelivery Not
show all

Potomac Waterfront Flood Mitigation Study - City of Alexandria

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?