My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD00261
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
FLOOD00261
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 10:50:42 AM
Creation date
10/4/2006 9:10:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Montezuma
Community
Dolores
Stream Name
Dolores River
Title
Flood Mitigation Plan for a Flood Control Project on the Dolores River
Date
1/1/1986
Prepared For
Dolores
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Flood Mitigation/Flood Warning/Watershed Restoration
Supplemental fields
Water Division
7
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />are intended to address the question of protec~:.ns these "75 <br />structures. <br /> <br />3.1 Flood Insurance <br /> <br />Given the small ntJmber of flood insurance Dol icies in <br />effect in Dolores, consideration should be given to <br />encouraging more property owners to purchase f:clod insurance <br />as long as portions of the town remain in the "IOO-year <br />floodplain. Using maps and brochures, property owners could <br />be notified of the hazard they face and of the 2lvailability <br />of flood insurance. Ultimately the purchase of flood <br />insurance is decided by prope~ty.owners and len6ers; <br />the town can only inform people of the situatior,. <br /> <br />3.2 Floodoroofing <br /> <br />In October 1983, the Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />completed the Colorado FloodD!:o(~~}-ng Mcnual" T[lE, material <br />in that manual could guide individual crooertv owners on how <br />to protect their buildings or. at least, how to reduce <br />damages. Given the relatively large nu:mber of structures <br />involved if total floodproofing were pursued, however, it <br />appears that a structural ~:ood protection project could be <br />far more cost effective than floodproofing. It should also <br />:~e noted that floodp~oofing wo~ld not ;rotect s~~eets, <br />Jtilities, or landscaping or reduce outdoo= clean UP costs. <br /> <br />:3.3 St~uctc~al Flood Cont~ol Measu~es <br /> <br />As shown on Plate 4, ~he Bu~eau of Reclamation has <br /> <br />1~~=eaay const~uctea <br /> <br />some levee-s .~;; <br /> <br />",...,l...........oc <br />'--',-,-,-,--...:. <br /> <br />':':;ese <br /> <br />l~sse~~ia:!y stop at ~~e ~~~ S:~~e~ 3~i6?e. ~~s~~ea~ o~ 4~~ <br />~;treet the~e are ~wo shor~ sec~ions of :evee tha~ we~e <br /> <br />c:onstructed by the Bureau. Parts of these levee sectio~s <br />z~re not high enough to meet the Na~ional Floo6 :'~su~ance <br />})~ogram (NFIP) criterion of .) :Eee: 0: :E:::-eeboa:-d abcH-r<2 t:'Je <br />',OO-year flood elevation (4 :Eeet for the firs~ 1JO feet <br />upstream of bridges). In acd:~:io:::, the:::-e are severel qaps <br />\lhere there is not levee prote~:tio!1 to keep 100-yea-:- f10\.,"s <br />out of the town. <br /> <br />-8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.