My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD03130
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD03130
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:26:24 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 11:28:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
Statewide
Stream Name
All
Basin
Statewide
Title
Flood Proofing Technology
Date
4/1/1994
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 /> <br />exceeded the value of the structure and property, the <br />homeowner was presented with an olTerforthe purchase of <br />the structure and property in lieu of flood proofing, Since <br />these homeowners were not eligible to relocate to a Corps <br />of Engineers constructed H&CD site and in an effort to <br />reduce the social impacts of relocations, homeowners who <br />chose not to accept the purchase olTer were allowed to <br />retain the flood proofmg option and have their structure <br />flood proofed. However, the attractiveness of this pur- <br />chase option resulted in approximately 40 percent of the <br />residences eligible for flood proofing being voluntarily <br />sold to the Corps of Engineers by the owners, <br />This economic evaluation process was modified foruse <br />with commercial structures. Commercial owners were not <br />presented with a choice of flood proofing or acquisition, <br />but were offered the most cost-effective option based upon <br />a comparison of acquisition costs and flood proofing costs. <br />The flood proofmg costs were based upon the most cost- <br />effective, feasible flood proofing option available for each <br />structure, This resulted in 85 percent of the commercial <br />owners choosing the voluntary acquisition option. The <br />remaining 15 percent chose other options for their com- <br />merci aI structure, <br />Following owner application for the program and ap- <br />proval of a flood proofing design by the Corps of Engineers <br />for the structure, the flood proofmg construction was <br />supervised and inspected by state housing agencies under <br />a cooperative agreement with the Corps of Engineers, A <br />construction contract, reflecting the approved design and <br />negoti ated cost, was executed between the homeowner and <br />the contractor. For those structures where elevation was <br />the most cost-effective option, the owner was required to <br />execute an agreement, prior to start of construction, that <br />restricted future use of the foundation area under the <br />elevated first floor. Future enforcement of owneroperation <br />and maintenance of the flood proofing construction and <br />owner compliance with the restrictive agreements was <br />transferred to the local sponsor following the final con- <br />struction inspection <br /> <br />Acquisition Options <br /> <br />The voluntary acquisition program was made available <br />for those structures located within the regulatory flood way <br />limits, or which needed to be raised more than 12 feet, or <br />which were physically unsound or where the cost of flood <br />proofing exceeded the value of the real property. Underthis <br />program, eligible structure owners could sell their flood <br />plain property and structure and relocate to a site of their <br />choice above the elevation of the 1977 flood under the <br />Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acqui- <br />sition Act of 1970, (p.L. 91-646) or relocate to a Corps of <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Engineers constructed H&CD site. Housing benefits in <br />excess ofP.L. 91-646 relocation benefits were provided to <br />flood plain residents choosing the Corps of Engineers' <br />H&CD site to encourage clearing of the flood plain and to <br />maximize use of the new subdivisions. The evacuated <br />flood plain land was dedicated, depending on its physical <br />characteristics, to eitherthe replacement of wildlife habitat <br />or disposal through the General Administrative Services <br />(GSA) for future development under the existing local <br />flood plain management ordinances, The April 1977 flood <br />was used as the design flood for construction on the tracts <br />transferred to GSA for disposal, The 1977 flood elevation <br />was higherthan the IOO-yearflood elevation at these tracts <br />and, therefore, was used as the controlling flood elevation, <br /> <br />Flood Proofing <br /> <br />Design Parameters <br /> <br />A series of design parameters were developed for the <br />flood proofing program to determine the feasi bility of flood <br />proofmg individual or groupsof structures and to guide the <br />flood proofing design process. These parameters included: <br />I) The design flood: Established by the Section 202 <br />legislation as the April 1977 flood. In those areas of the <br />Valley where the I OO-year flood was higher than the April <br />1977, the 100- year flood level was used as the design flood, <br />2) Freeboard: Generdlly, I foot of freeboard was <br />added when elevating structures. The freeboard was mea- <br />sured from the elevation of the design flood to the bottom <br />of the subfloormaterial or floor slab of the first floor. One <br />foot of freeboard was used on the design of the veneer wall <br />project <br />3) Waterproofed Veneer Wall Design: The maxi- <br />mwn height for the design of a veneer wall is dependent <br />upon the strength of the existing structure walls and the soil <br />conditions around the structure. Previous testing has indi- <br />cated that generally a 3-foot wall height is the maximum <br />advisable for flood proofmg of structural veneer walls. <br />4) Height of Raise: The height limit for elevating <br />structures was determined after an analysis of the prob- <br />lems associated with structure access, foundation design, <br />aesthetics and the programmatic costs of relocating a <br />substantial number of the affected structures in the Valley, <br />In the Tug Fork project, it was determined that elevating <br />structures up to 12 feet from the ground surface was <br />technically feasible, socially acceptable and economically <br />justifiable, Setting the height limit at 12 feet resulted in a <br />substantial savings in program costs by reducing the <br />number of structures for which acquisition/relocation was <br />the only option. <br />5) Flood Water Velocily: Based upon hydrologic and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.