My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04787
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD04787
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:47:15 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 12:59:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Colorado Association of Storm Water and Floodplain Managers 8th annual Conference
Date
9/22/1997
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
CASFM
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.
/
181
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 /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />DATA ANALYSIS <br /> <br />Creating the Data Set <br /> <br /> <br />Data for the estimation of the economic benefits of California's Urban Stream <br /> <br /> <br />Restoration Program consists of property transactions, property characteristics, stream project <br /> <br />characteristics and demographics of the residents living in the area. The DWR compiled the <br /> <br /> <br />data, beginning with the pairing of unfunded and funded projects according to similar <br /> <br /> <br />locations, demographics, and project characteristics. A total of seven project pairs were <br /> <br /> <br />pooled for analysis. Initially 12 projects were selected to reflect a geographic mix <br /> <br />throughout California, and to represent urban, suburban and rural stream restoration projects. <br /> <br />Funded projects similar in location were paired with unfunded projects in attempt to control <br /> <br />for location specific elements that might be difficult to quantify in a regression. This was <br /> <br /> <br />done because we were not certain if we could pool the sample across projects in different <br /> <br />locations due to the possibility they might have different regression coefficients. <br /> <br /> <br />Unfortunately, several projects had to be dropped since data on sales transactions or <br />characteristics of the unfunded project were not available. <br />Two pairs were from Santa Cruz County, four from Contra Costa (near the San <br />Francisco Bay area) and one from Solano County in northern California. The streams <br />involved in the funded projects averaged a flow of about 500 cubic feet per second during <br />storms and ranged from 2,000 to 3,000 cfs during peak winter flows. Each pair of projects <br />contained an average of 80 properties adjacent to a funded project and 70 properties near an <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.