My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD10420
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
10001-11000
>
FLOOD10420
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:15:26 AM
Creation date
8/16/2007 10:57:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Adams
Broomfield
Weld
Community
Broomfield, Westminster and Thornton
Stream Name
Lower Big Dry Creek
Title
Lower Big Dry Creek Hydrology Study
Date
6/1/2005
Prepared For
Big Dry Creek Watershed Association
Prepared By
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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 />I <br />I <br />m <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Lower Big Dry preek Hydrologic Study <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Common themes and concerns expressed by landowners included: <br /> <br />. The late July and mid-August storm events of 2004 produced some of the largest flows <br />observed to date by the landowners, most of whom have either lived in the watershed for <br />their entire lives or at least the last 20f30 years, (Section 8.4 provides an analysis of these <br />storm events.). These storms caused extensive flooding, erosion and sediment deposition, <br />which was still evident at the time of {he spring 2005 visit, as shown in Appendix A. <br /> <br />Most landowners recognized that the hooding and erosion prohlems are not easily solved, <br />but would like action to be taken to p~event conditions from becoming worse in the future <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />as upstream growth continues. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. Several landowners asked whether some sort of upstream regional detention could be <br />implemented, with several noting thb role that the railroad embankment near Colorado <br />Boulevard plays. (This embankment is also noted in one of the master drainage plans.) <br />Weld County landowners downstream of this embankment benefit from this inadve:rtent <br />detention, while Adams County 11ndowners upstream of the embankment report <br />. d fl d' d h' . I . <br />mcrease 00 mg ue to t IS constnctlOn. <br /> <br />While erosion was evident thrOUghoJ long reaches of the creek, several landowners were <br />concerned about one key issue on tJeir property. For example, the Rosenbrocks, Tom <br />I <br />Chikuma, Glenda Ira and Bob Green have property access issues when high water makes <br />their driveway or property bridges ilpassible or causes erosion to crossing structures. <br />Don Wright is primarily concerned lbout a steep cut bank that threatens his irrigation <br /> <br />ditch. The Wagner property has several hairpin-like bends that are experiencing <br />accelerated erosion. The Howards are concerned about the Y oxall Ditch headgate. Bob <br />Green and Glenda Ira both have brikge erosion or washouts limiting grazing property <br /> <br />access. <br /> <br />· Throughout the watershed, broken concrete placed by landowners along stream banks to <br />stabilize the banks was evident. <br /> <br />971-179.092 <br />June 2005 <br /> <br />Wright wr' Englnee.., Inc. <br /> <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Page 43 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.