My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD07547
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
FLOOD07547
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:12:05 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 3:03:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
Statewide
Stream Name
All
Basin
Statewide
Title
Economic Analysis of Floodproofing Analysis of a Small Commercial Buiding
Date
1/1/1979
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
FEMA
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.
/
48
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 />Foreword <br /> <br />The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, and the Flood <br />Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended, are in- <br />tended to provide the Nation with the legislative basis for <br />a comprehensive floodplain management program. This <br />program is designed to slow or reverse the steady in- <br />crease in flood losses to the Nation. <br /> <br />A key element of the National Flood Insurance Pr09ram <br />requirements is that new construction in participating <br />communities must be protected to the 1 DO-year flood <br />level. Non,residential structures may be either flood, <br />proofed to that level to prevent the entry of flood waters, <br />or constructed with their lowest floor at the elevation of <br />the 100-year flood level. <br /> <br />To assess the effect of this requirement on the cost of <br />construction, HUD's Office of Policy Development and <br />Research commissioned Sheaffer and Roland, Inc" to <br />research, design and compare several methods of pro- <br />tecting a small (approximately 22,500 square feet of floor <br />space) commercial structure for a specific site in Jersey <br />Shore, Pennsylvan,a, <br /> <br />The analysis was performed for three floodproofin9 <br />design alternatives meeting National Flood Insurance <br />Program requirements: using fill, a combination of fill and <br />watertight bulkheads, and elevation on columns, These <br />designs were compared to that of a conventional build- <br />ing with no design features to protect against flood <br />losses and with a building incorporating wet floodproof- <br />ing features, <br /> <br />The report shows that the long-term benefits of flood- <br />proofing exceed the costs of such measures, although <br />wet floodproofing was not found to be economically <br />feasible, We recognize that the costs and benefits pre- <br />sented in this report are for a specific structure in a <br />specific location, and therefore cannot be applied else- <br />where without adjustment; however, the analytical tech~ <br />niques should be useful elsewhere, <br /> <br />While HUD does not wish to encourage construction in <br />floodpiain areas, ,t 's hoped that this report will show the <br />wisdom of elevation and flood proofing in those situations <br />where it is deemed appropriate or where development <br />took place before there was sufficient knowledge of the <br />flood hazard, <br /> <br />We welcome any comments or additional information <br />you may have, <br /> <br />Gloria M, Jimenez <br />Federal Insurance Administrator <br /> <br />Donna E, Shalala <br />Ass,stant Secretary for Policy <br />Development and Research <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.