FLOOD01260

• County: Larimer
• Community: Fort Collins
• Stream Name: Boxelder Creek, Dry Creek, Spring Creek
• Title: Flood Control for Boxelder Creek, Spring Creek, and Dry Creek - Fort Collins
• Date: 2/1/1994
• Prepared For: Larimer County
• Prepared By: US Army Corps of Engineers
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

CHAPTER 5. PLAN FORMULATION

NO~STRt:CTl)RAL MEASURF_<;

. Dcterminc if further l100d control studicsare warranted;

NO ACTION
The no-action plan would include the measure, most likely to be implemented by
local interests if no Federal action were taken by the Corps. The City of Fort Collins
and Larimer County would continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program, wOlltd continue to implement necessary flood plain zoning, and would continue
to use the eKisting irrigation canals for flood control. Also, it is likely that the City
and/or county would implement some of the channel improvements recommended by
Gingery in the Dry Creek drainageway plan; however, ncither the City nor the county
may be able to construct any channel improvements for many years, Consequently, the
ilnmcdiate flood threat from Dry Creek would not be resolved by taking no action. The
no-action altcrnative does nO! resolve th.: flood problem, but it is shown here as the
baseline condition lO which otherallemative me.'1sures and plans can be compared.

PLA:\';';Ii'G OBjECTIVl'S

The planning objectives of this reconnaissance-level study ineludethe following:

. Determine if there are economically feasible and environmentally acceptable
solutions for redllcing or eliminating the flooding problem on Dry Creek at Fort Collins
and in Larimer County and, if so, to identify at teast one economically feasible flood
control alternative'
,

. Establish the degree of Federal interest in further ~tudies and c()n~truction' and
,

ROOD PIWOFlNG
The tloodproofing a1tcrnative consists ofelev<ltingbL,;ldingsor the irwnlentsllsing
varlOllS techniques; col\~trucling protective walls, berms, 'Jr levct'.' arolLnd individual
structllres; or rehabilitating the structures' cxteriors and openings with watcr-re.~iStallt
matcrials. The advantages and disadvantages of tile several approaches are as follows.

. Determine if there i.1 a non. Federal s;>or.s:Jr th?t;s wi!ling tl' <:()~l-~hact' any
,
feasibility-phasestudie.\ that rnaybc warranted,

'FLOOD DAMAGE REDliCTlO~ MEASllRK'i CO:'>lSIDERED

Thc measures considered to resolve the flood problcll\s inelude both nonstruchlral
and structural mcasures, The nonstructural mcasllresconsidcrcd werc no action, tlood
proofing,!lood warning and emergency evaclJation, flood insurance, and tlood plain
nming. The struct\lr~1 measures considered were diver,ioll channels, channel improve-
ments, damsilnd levees.

. Temp{lrary Closures. The addition of temporary watertight closures to doors
and windowS whiCh are sL,bjcct to tloodingcan reduce flood damages significantly at a
fraction of the cost of Olher flood proofing tcchniques. The use oftcmporary closure:;
requires that sufficient warning time bc available for thcir in:;tallOltio n and the remainder
oftbe b\li1dingsbe watcrtightand capabkofwithslanding the hydraulic loads accom.
panying flooding. The flood ".arning time on Dry Crc.:k i~ short, and few buildings in
the flood plain have the structural requirements necessary wallow watertight closllres.

'-I

).2