Download to read or print in PDF (2 mb)

MITIGATION
Success
STORIES

IN THE
UNITED STATES

  DECEMBER 2000

Mitigation Success Stories

A joint project of the Association of
State Floodplain Managers’ Flood
Mitigation Committee and the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency Mitigation Directorate, 1999.

One of the primary goals of local, state and federal floodplain managers and emergency managers is to reduce or eliminate the effects of natural hazards such as flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, winter storms, wildfires, etc. in communities nationwide. Efforts to achieve and implement mitigation techniques, approaches and successes have been actively underway in the United States for over two decades. Great strides have been made, lives saved, and property damage avoided by numerous communities across the U.S. More often than not, these achievements have been made following devastating disasters, when affected local officials and the general public realized the need to effect change in their communities. Change through mitigation means breaking the disaster/rebuild/disaster cycle.

Today, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program are two primary sources of funding used to implement mitigation measures. But, as the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Mitigation Committee has found out, there are many other mitigation initiatives throughout the country that are beginning to make a difference in reducing or eliminating the effects of natural disasters.

The purpose of this document is twofold: to showcase examples of natural hazard mitigation activities and to publicize the benefits of mitigation successes across our country. Hopefully, these examples can serve as models for others to use and provide decision-makers with valuable information about how to formulate, undertake and ultimately achieve natural hazard reduction in our communities.

The ASFPM Mitigation Committee is pleased to provide this information for the benefit of communities and citizens who continue to live and work in harm’s way. It is our hope that the document will encourage all of us to make the sometimes difficult decisions which ultimately save lives, eliminate property damage and reduce disaster costs through the positive benefits of hazard mitigation.

The spirit of cooperation among the individuals, agencies and organizations who contributed to this publication serves as an example of the inter-disciplinary approach of multi-objective management which is so essential to the success of hazard mitigation. Special appreciation is extended to the driving force behind this effort, ASFPM Flood Mitigation Committee Chairs Mark Matulik (Colorado) and Mike Powell (Delaware).

The following were helpful in the development and production of this publication:

The Contributing Authors
The Colorado Water Conservation Board
FEMA Mitigation Directorate
FEMA Region VIII
Synergy Ink

This publication is available free on the ASFPM website at www.floods.org.

Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc.
2809 Fish Hatchery Road, Suite 204
Madison WI 53713
(608) 274-0123 * Fax (608) 274-0696
Email: asfpm@floods.org

Home

Flood Mitigation in the Delaware River Basin

BACKGROUND

Flooding at the City of Port Jervis, New York occurs as a result of heavy runoff or ice jams that form downstream of the city. During the 1981 flooding event, an ice jam formed about five miles downstream where two islands divide the flow of the Delaware River. As the ice jam progressed, a severe backup of water and ice occurred at Port Jervis and at Matamoras Borough and Westfall Township, Pennsylvania.

Then several ice jams upstream broke loose and traveled downstream. Because the downstream ice jam had already formed, the water level rose 14.5 feet in one hour and large blocks of ice damaged the low lying areas of the Pennsylvania municipalities and Port Jervis when the stream banks and levees were overtopped. Approximately 950 structures sustained damage amounting to $14.7 million (1981 dollars) and one death was attributed to the flooding. In February 1982 another ice jam formed, again below Port Jervis. A State of Emergency was declared by local officials, but this time the increase in water level did not result in damages.

PROJECT

Based on an engineering feasibility study authorized by Congress and conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), a flood mitigation project was recommended. The project consisted of tree removal in a 200 feet wide and 2.5 mile long section of a natural back channel between Machipacong Island and the river shoreline in Montague, New Jersey. The project did not entail any excavation, only the removal of trees. The Delaware River Basin Commission agreed to be the non-federal sponsor of the project in 1985 and coordinated the local project funding for the purchase of real estate easements and for obtaining New Jersey State and federal permits. The twenty-five percent local cost share for tree removal, right of way acquisition, and the construction of an access road was shared among New York State and the City of Port Jervis as well as Pennsylvania and its municipalities of Matamoras Borough and Westfall Township.

The project was designed to alleviate flooding from an ice jam similar to that which impacted Port Jervis and the Pennsylvania municipalities in 1981 by allowing ice and water to flow through the back channel of Mashipacong Island if the main channel were blocked with ice.

BENEFITS

The diversion channel was completed in 1995 by the Corps. In January 1996, another severe ice jam occurred on the Delaware River in the Port Jervis area. The project was successful in that water and ice were conveyed through the back channel. This alleviated flooding upstream in the Port Jervis, Matamoras Borough and Westfall Township areas.

An initial benefit-cost analysis by the Corps determined that the project would be cost effective with a ratio of 1.31. No structures existed within the project right-of-way and all real estate for the project was secured by easements. The completed project cost $1.495 million. The environmental impacts of the cleared channel were mitigated by off-site wetland enhancement. This project has received recognition as an effective example of federal, interstate and local municipal government cooperation.

Home