My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD00812
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
FLOOD00812
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 1:21:27 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 9:29:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Larimer
Community
Fort Collins
Stream Name
McClellands and Mail Creek
Title
Major Drainageway Planning
Date
12/1/1980
Prepared For
Fort Collins
Prepared By
CWCB
Contract/PO #
&&
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
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 />SECTlONV <br /> <br />Further there is destruction of floodplain ecology, and a loss of recreational <br />opportunities. A value of thirty (30%) percent of total damage was used to Quan- <br />tifythese "intangible" damages. <br />The dollar amounts listed in Table V-l have been plotted against the excee. <br />dence probability (Inverse of the return period) by reach to illustrate where the <br />bulk of flood damages occur. Where heavy flood damages result from the more fre- <br />quent floods, inadequate channel capacity is indicated. Where flood damages rise <br />only in the less frequent floods, good channel capacity exists. <br />The area beneath the flood damage curves represents the average annual flood <br />damage. This is the average yearly cost of leaving the existing conditions as they <br />are. listed in Table Y-l are the average annual flood damages summarized by reach. <br />These are the "baseline" conditions against which the alternat ive plans are judged. <br /> <br />FloodOamaqe <br /> <br />The proposed improvements for the McClellands and Mail Creek Basins haVe been <br />evaluated by comparing amortized improvement costs with the average annual flood <br />damage costs. The magnitude of flood damages and costs for flood control improve- <br />ments are directly dependent upon estimates of flood flows and limits of the res- <br />pective floodplains. Given the flood hydrographs for floodS in a range of recur- <br />rence intervals, dollar amounts for flood damage and costs for implementing pre- <br />ventative measures are estimated bas€d on an analysis of the existing hydraulic <br />conditions. <br /> <br />The annual potential flood damage to public and private property within the <br />floodplain is a function of the development within the floodplain. Unregulated, <br />future development could spread to the floodplain areas and increase annual flood <br />damage. With regulation, future flood damage potential should tend to decrease <br />because of the limitations placed on construction in the floodplain. To analyze <br />the effectiveness of proposed improvements, a baseline condition is used based on <br />the existing channel conditions subject to floods generated by the estimated future <br />drainage basin conditions. This approach is conservative, but because the drainage <br />basin is urbanizing rapidly, it is reasonable. <br />flood damage to property is estimated by catagorizing land use activiti€s <br />within the floodplain. Foreachdesignflood,thefloodplainwasdelineatedand <br />damage calculated according to land use category and flow depth. Structural <br />damage was determined by estimating replacement costs for utilities, roads, culverts, <br />and so forth. for residential and commercial structures, flood damage was estimated <br />using proper~ valuations Obtained from local real estate listings and from indi- <br />vidual property owner's information and then applying a damage factor according to <br />t~ difference in the flood depth and the first flood elevation of the structure. <br />The damage factor, were obtained from curves published by the Federal lnsurance <br />AdministNtion, (r'efen"nce #4). Content ddmage for residentidl structures was es- <br />timated by applying similar depth.related damage factors to forty (40%) percent of <br />the estimated structural value. Forty (40%) percent of structure value for contents <br />was used based on past inflation rates and appreciation rates in the housing industry. <br />This procedure was used because updating content cost figures from the mid-1970's <br />County tax records divided by 0.3 proved to be unrealistic in evaluating structure <br />costs. Because of the isolated and sporadic nature of floodplain, a content data <br />for commercial and industrial properties was obtained by interviewing individual <br />management personnel on a casy-by~case basis. <br /> <br />Flood damage estimated for each category and reach are listed in Table IV-i. <br />These figures represent direct flood damages. Other "damages" occur during a flood <br />whiCh are not so easily quantified. Probably the most significant haz~rds asso- <br />ciated with the occurrence of a flood are the threats to the both physIcal and <br />emotionalhealth,andsafetyofpeople. Additionally,thereareflood"damages" <br />which result from inconvenience: interruption of traffic flows, obstruction of <br />emergency vehicle movement, loss of sales by businesses dependent upon flood- <br />damaged establishments for goods and services, and interruption of domestic services. <br /> <br />" ~ <br />,-, <br /> <br />V-I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.