Potomac Waterfront Flood Mitigation Study - City of Alexandria

More documents

Recommendations

Info

N ALFRED ST MUIRS CT S COLUMBUS ST CLIENT PROJ REVISION NO SCALE N COLUMBUS ST S WASHINGTON ST WOLFE ST WILKES ST S SAINT ASAPH ST PRINCESS ST GIBBON ST City of Alexandria N WASHINGTON ST ORONOCO ST BROCKETTS AL S SAINT ASAPH ST S PITT ST PRINCE ST S PITT ST GREEN ST N SAINT ASAPH ST QUEEN ST DUKE ST JEFFERSON CT FRANKLIN ST JEFFERSON ST S ROYAL ST N PITT ST Potomac River Waterfront Flood Mitigation Study 1 inch = 400 feet W:\City of Alexandria\15298470 - Lower King St\Task 3 \Report\Final\Figures\MXDs\F4-2 Structure Flooding.mxd 0 DES BY DR BY CHK BY CJL CJL MER 09/11/09 09/24/09 10/04/09 S FAIRFAX ST LEE CT N ROYAL ST CAMERON ST KING ST S LEE ST N FAIRFAX ST RAMSAY AL SWIFTS AL POTOMAC ST 0 100 200 400 Feet TANCIL CT N LEE ST WALES AL BATTERY PL TOBACCO QY THOMPSONS AL POTOMAC CT TITLE QUAY ST CAMERON ME FAYETTE AL S UNION ST S UNION ST WILKES ST KEITH'S LA FRANKLIN ST N UNION ST STRAND ST WHARF ST ALEXANDER ST THOMPSONS AL CAMERON ST WALES AL Structures Predicted to be Flooded for Each Event 200 Orchard Ridge Drive Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Legend Potomac River Buildings affected by: Nuisance Flood (Based on FFE data) Intermediate Flood (Based on FFE data) Extreme Flood (Based on FFE data) Nuisance Flood (Based on topographic data) Intermediate Flood (Based on topographic data) Extreme Flood (Based on topographic data) Buildings PROJ NO FIGURE 4-2 15298592
4.2.1 Local Protection for Historic Properties Technical Analyses Support To safeguard its historic assets, the City of Alexandria regulates alterations to designated historic properties through the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ). Alexandria has several historic districts that are both nationally and locally designated. All buildings within these historic districts are legally protected on a local level through administrative review procedures. The City of Alexandria Master Plan for Historic Preservation states that any building proposed for construction, reconstruction, alteration, or restoration within the district must be approved by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). The BAR also has authority over the moving, removing, encapsulation, and demolition of buildings in the district as well as the approval of signs (City of Alexandria, 1992). For new construction or renovations within the districts, compatibility of design is currently required for compliance with the City’s permitting process and established design guidelines. Review of alterations within the historic district allows for protection of the historic context of individual buildings, including settings and viewsheds within the districts. All of the proposed flood mitigation alternatives are located within the Old and Historic Alexandria District. Coordination at the local level will involve, at minimum, the BAR. The BAR regulations state that “a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is required for all new construction and exterior alterations that are within an historic district and are visible from a public right of way, including those visible from public streets and alleys, waterways, and parks.” Any proposed project would also likely trigger review and compliance with Section 11-411: Archaeology Protection, part of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. Due to the age of the buildings in the project area, some dating to the mid-18 th century, and the continuous historic occupation of the area since then, the potential for the proposed flood mitigation alternatives to impact archaeological sites, both documented and undocumented, is high. Any subsurface disturbance within the project area is likely to encounter evidence of past historic and/or potentially prehistoric occupation. Moreover, the waterfront and near-shore areas are of heightened sensitivity given the historic use of the area as a port. The adjacency of the Potomac River to the project area and the nature of the proposed alternatives raise the possibility of nautical as well as terrestrial archaeological investigations. 4.2.2 Federal Protection for Historic Properties Historic properties are also protected under Section 106 of the federal National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Historic properties, as defined in the NHPA, are those buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The implementing regulations for Section 106 state that prior to approval of any federally-funded or licensed project, also known as an “undertaking,” the project’s effects, either direct or indirect, on historic properties is to be taken into account. In the case of adverse affects, federal agencies must seek ways to avoid and minimize these adverse effects, and if none are found, mitigate the loss to the public. The process, known as Section 106 Review, is laid out in 36 CFR Part 800, and involves consultation with legitimate stakeholders, including the State Historic Preservation Officer, which in Virginia is the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR). Direct effects include actions that would physically impact a 28-JUL-10\\ 4-5
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 40 and 41: E LURAY AV E GLENDALE AV EARL ST N
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 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:
Structural Mitigation Measure Conce
Page 100 and 101:
Structural Mitigation Measure Conce
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?