MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011210588

Local flood proofing programs

2005· other· en· W7011210588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUS Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer Research and Development Center (Knowledge Core) · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythOutreachFlood insurancePublic workLocal communityFlood controlState (computer science)Flood mitigation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local Flood Proofing\nPrograms\nUS Army Corps of Engineers\nNational Nonstructural/Flood Proofing Committee\nFebruary 2005Local Flood Proofing Programs\nContents\nChapter 1. Introduction........................................................................................................1\n1.1. Background............................................................................................................1\n1.2. This Publication.....................................................................................................2\n1.3. Flood Damage Reduction Measures......................................................................2\nChapter 2. Benefits to the Community................................................................................9\n2.1. Why Start a Program?............................................................................................9\n2.2. The Community Rating System...........................................................................12\nChapter 3. Program Assessment........................................................................................16\n3.1. Technical Assessment..........................................................................................17\n3.2. Legal Constraints.................................................................................................21\n3.3. Administrative Assessment.................................................................................25\nChapter 4. Public Information Activities...........................................................................30\n4.1. Outreach Projects.................................................................................................30\n4.2. Technical Information.........................................................................................35\n4.3. Technical Assistance...........................................................................................36\nChapter 5. Funding Sources...............................................................................................42\n5.1. Local Taxes..........................................................................................................42\n5.2. Other Local Funds and Fees................................................................................43\n5.3. State and Federal Grants......................................................................................44\n5.4. Property Owners..................................................................................................47\n5.5. Creative Financing...............................................................................................48\nChapter 6. Funding Arrangements.....................................................................................50\n6.1. Low Interest Loans..............................................................................................50\n6.2. Rebates.................................................................................................................51\n6.3. Cost Sharing.........................................................................................................53\n6.4. Full Funding.........................................................................................................54\nChapter 7. Implementation.................................................................................................56\n7.1. Implementation Policies......................................................................................56\n7.2. Legal Arrangements.............................................................................................61\n7.3. Design Standards.................................................................................................63\n7.4. Implementation Procedures.................................................................................66\nChapter 8. Resources.........................................................................................................73\n8.1. US Army Corps of Engineers..............................................................................73\n8.2. Funding and Technical Assistance......................................................................74\n8.3. References............................................................................................................75\nLocal Flood Proofing Programs – i – February 2005\nAcknowledgements\nThis document was prepared by French & Associates, Ltd., Park Forest, Illinois, under Contract No. DACW35-03-P-0115. It is based on publications, research findings, site visits, and interviews with the following communities and organizations. Their assistance is appreciated.\nAscension Parish, LA *\nAurora, IL\nBarbour County, WV\nBartlett, IL *\nBolingbrook, IL\nBoulder, CO *\nCentralia, WA *\nCitrus County, FL *\nDare County, NC *\nDavenport, IA *\nDes Plaines, IL *\nDuPage County, IL\nElgin, IL\nFairfax County, VA *\nFort Collins, CO *\nFrankfort, KY *\nGrand Forks, ND *\nHillsborough County, FL *\nHomewood, IL\nKing County, WA *\nLansing, IL *\nLexington-Fayette Urban County, KY\nLicking County, Ohio *\nMahoning County, OH\nMandeville, LA *\nMecklenburg County, NC *\nMobile, AL\nMount Prospect, IL *\nPrince George’s County, MD *\nRegina, Saskatchewan\nRosemont, IL\nSacramento County, CA *\nSnoqualmie, WA *\nSouth Holland, IL *\nSt. Charles, IL *\nSt. Charles, MI\nSt. Tammany Parish, LA *\nVassar, MI\nIllinois-American Water Company, Alton, IL\nJefferson County Drainage District #6, TX\nMaumee River Basin Commission, Fort Wayne, IN\nMetropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, St. Louis, MO\nSouth Carolina Sea Grant, Charleston, SC\nWashington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA\n* Community is in the Community Rating System, receiving credit for providing flood proofing information and assistance to property owners (see page 12).\nNote: This list is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of communities that have local flood proofing programs. There are many other active programs that were not contacted due to time and resource constraints.\nExcept as noted, all illustrations are from the referenced community or French & Associates, Ltd..\nLocal Flood Proofing Programs – ii – February 2005\nChapter 1. Introduction\n1.1. Background\nFlood proofing as a flood damage reduction measure: Flood proofing is a proven approach to reducing flood damage. It involves altering an existing building or its immediate area to prevent or minimize damage during a flood. Alterations may range from minor changes to the utilities, to waterproofing walls, to elevating the building above flood levels. Flood damage reduction measures are summarized in Section 1.3 and described in more detail in the references listed in Section 8.3.\nThe potential for flood proofing to reduce flood losses is significant. More and more communities are realizing that for financial, technical and environmental reasons, the traditional structural flood control measures will not solve every local flood problem. Flood proofing approaches to flood reduction have several advantages:\n→ They can be as or more effective for certain types of flooding\n→ They can be much less expensive\n→ Costs are often assumed by or shared with the property owners\n→ They can be less disruptive to neighborhoods and habitat\n→ They can be constructed quickly, without environmental reviews and permit delays\nWhile many people have flood proofed their homes or businesses, most have used common sense or self-taught approaches. Studies have shown that technical knowledge and financing are the greatest impediments to implementing a flood proofing project. While surveys showed that many people want to flood proof, lack of funds was listed as the most important reason why they did not. Further, flooded homeowners who received assistance from the government were more likely to flood proof and spend more money to do a more effective job.\nGovernment programs: Federal, state and local agencies have researched techniques, promoted flood proofing as a viable flood protection measure, assisted property owners, and implemented their own projects. Some Federal agencies, notably the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have financed flood proofing projects. Some states have implemented public information and financial assistance programs. However, statutory authority and limited resources have kept the Federal and state programs from reaching many people. More attention is needed from local governments.\nThis floodwall was installed after the owner attended a local workshop on flood proofing. The community also helped pay for the project with a rebate. It has kept floodwaters out of the house three times since it was built in 1991 (South Holland, Illinois).\nLocal Flood Proofing Programs – 1 – February 2005\nLocal programs: Some local governments have flood proofed public buildings or provided technical or financial support for flood proofing projects on private property. Each community’s program was developed differently and is administered differently. However, all believe flood proofing is important enough to deserve their attention.\nAs preparation for this publication, staff from over 40 local flood proofing programs were contacted and interviewed. The experiences of these programs can be very helpful in guiding other communities in developing their own approaches to flood proofing.\n1.2. This Publication\nThis document reviews how a community can develop and administer its own flood proofing program. The reader should follow the step by step suggestions in the following chapters:\n→ First, determine whether the community would benefit by having an active local flood proofing program. This is the subject of Chapter 2.\n→ Once a community decides to get involved, it should assess the factors that affect the design of its program.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUS Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer Research and Development Center (Knowledge Core)French-language works237,207