My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02248
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02248
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:23:53 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:43:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Clear Creek
Community
Georgetown
Stream Name
Clear Creek
Basin
South Platte
Title
Flood Hazard Mitigation Report
Date
9/1/1998
Prepared For
Georgetown
Prepared By
Montgomery Watson
Floodplain - Doc Type
Flood Mitigation/Flood Warning/Watershed Restoration
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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 />SECTION 3 <br /> <br />3.1.2 Historic Preservation <br /> <br />PAST FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ACTIVITIES <br /> <br />There isn't much open space in Georgetown, however, it's National Historic Quality must be <br />preserved according to policies and guidelines set forth by the National and State Historic <br />Preservation Office. Building design and regulations are strictly enforced. In those regulations, <br />there are floodplain building requirements. Although there is not much business construction in <br />Georgetown, there has been some recent residential construction, none of which is in the <br />floodplain. <br /> <br />Flood hazard mitigation activities can be undertaken before, during or after a flood event. This <br />plan focuses on planning procedures that will reduce future flood damages. Georgetown's past <br />activities focused on response, sandbagging and dealing with recovery by patching where <br />significant damage was obvious. During 1995, floodwaters were actually diverted down a <br />residential street as a mitigation measure. <br /> <br />Residents along South Clear Creek have ownership of the creek cribbing along their property. <br />They are responsible for maintaining their section. Due to financial difficulties some do not have <br />the available funds to keep up with the failing structure. During this planning process there has <br />been discussion of the Town jointly working with the property owners to upgrade and preserve <br />the historic manner of the cribbing. <br /> <br />The townspeople and governmental structure have demonstrated a pro-active attitude and <br />commitment to reduce future flood hazard as funding permits. The following activities have been <br />undertaken in previous years. <br /> <br />Non-Structural (Section 3.1) <br />Flood Insurance <br />Historic Preservation <br />Sandbagging <br />Channel Dredging <br />Cribbing Reinforcement <br />Water Tubing Purchase <br />Community Training <br /> <br />Structural (Section 3.2) <br />Raising Residential Structure <br />Concrete Drainage Gutter <br />Flood-proofing Homes <br />Bridge Abutment Repair <br />Bridge Replacement <br /> <br />South Clear Creek meanders through town and meets Clear Creek at a direct 90-degree angle, <br />then flows east to form beautiful Georgetown Lake. The confluence area of the two creeks can <br />not currently be reconstructed for more parallel flow, because the banks are privately owned. <br />These waterways together provide and support many recreational amenities to tourists and <br />organizations worldwide, as well as to the children and families within Clear Creek County. <br />Plans to enhance these qualities also come to the table in search for project funds that comply <br />with the recreational criteria. <br /> <br />Past Flood Hazard Activities <br /> <br />It is a policy to preserve the historic quality of this community through positive decision-making <br />and implementation of a flood plan, which will encourage further community support pertinent <br />to flood management issues. <br /> <br />3.1 NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES <br /> <br />3.1.3 Sandbagging <br /> <br />3.1.1 Flood Insurance <br /> <br />Georgetown participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP is a <br />federally subsidized program which provides insurance against flood-Orelated losses to structures <br />and their contents. Flood insurance is available to any property owner in a participating <br />community whether or not the structure is located in an identified flood hazard area on a <br />community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Over half of Georgetown residents in direct <br />risk of the overflow water have invested in flood insurance since the flood in 1995. Other related <br />insurance programs include: <br /> <br />During high waters in May 1995, at the point of bank overflow, the Georgetown volunteer fire <br />department was paged to the incident area and began on South Clear Creek to divert the water <br />from South Clear Creek down Griffith Street to 15th Street. It then pooled in front of the train <br />depot to re-enter Clear Creek. Much sand and bags were needed, not to mention the manpower to <br />fill and place them. This has been the course of action for every flood event that has occurred <br />since 1965. <br /> <br />Sewer Backup Insurance: This will cover water damage to a structure and contents when sewer <br />lines back up. <br /> <br />After 1995, other means of sandbagging were researched. Investment in a bagging machine <br />seemed too costly. A company from California that manufactures water tubing structures came <br />out and put on a demonstration showing how efficient and fast a flood wall can be erected, but <br />again the cost was prohibitive and purchase was denied. <br /> <br />Sump Pump Insurance: Several companies will insure for damages caused if a sump fails. <br /> <br />3.1.4 Channel Dredging <br /> <br />The Corps of Engineers was contacted in the spring of 1996 for a dredging permit for South <br />Clear Creek. With much adversity, we were permitted to dredge, but limited to rock 2 feet in <br />diameter and larger. This was not sufficient to handle the entire problem so trenches or scouring <br />holes were dug just downstream of several bridges in town so that the debris would be caught <br /> <br />3-1 <br /> <br />3-2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.