My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD00261
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
FLOOD00261
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 10:50:42 AM
Creation date
10/4/2006 9:10:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Montezuma
Community
Dolores
Stream Name
Dolores River
Title
Flood Mitigation Plan for a Flood Control Project on the Dolores River
Date
1/1/1986
Prepared For
Dolores
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Flood Mitigation/Flood Warning/Watershed Restoration
Supplemental fields
Water Division
7
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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 />lOO-YE~ar elevation with no freeboa~d, :0 minimize cha~ges to <br />exist:.ng driveways and landscaping and to reduce costs. <br /> <br />Alternative A <br /> <br />Construct a new levee to meet federal cr~teria <br /> <br />with the westerly 300 feet having an iJVerage <br />height of 9 feet an~ the easterly 700 feet having <br />an average height of 4 feet (See cros~;-section <br /> <br />A-A) . <br /> <br />Jl.lternative B <br /> <br />.~ <br />1~ <br /> <br />Minimal raising of existing driveway and connecting <br />to high ground. The existing driveway, even thougt <br />is reasonably far f~om the river, would serve <br /> <br />'~ <br />10 <br /> <br />minimally as a levee. 500 ~eet o~ new levee connecting <br />the driveway to high ground will be constr~cte~. ~he <br />levee system will provide 100-year protection; however, <br />it will not be in comp~iance with federal levee <br />criteria. The purchase of flood insurance for <br />structures will remain a federal reguirment. (See <br />cross-section A-A.) <br /> <br />4.3. pro4ect Costs <br />. <br /> <br />~he costs of the primary a:te~na~ives (~hose fo~ t~e <br /> <br />n()r~h side of the river) were eS~lma~e6. In <br />CClst of each of the ~wo alterna~ives for the <br /> <br />adc::":io:-:., -:he <br /> <br />SOU':'!) s:'Q~ <br /> <br />,-,~ <br />~- <br /> <br />tt:e river was estimated. <br /> <br />Furthe~ aiscussion o~ the <br /> <br />feasibility o~ a structu~al prc~ect and oth~r Op~:.8~S fo~ <br /> <br />sc,~th side ~~ ?rov~6e~ ~~ Se=ti~n 5, ?ec~~me~sa~:O~5. <br /> <br />Costs fo~ the various alternatives were deveJ,ope6 by <br />using unit costs as listed i~ Table 2. Fi:l and C:_2}" <br />materials and riprap a:::-e assume:5 .~() b~ ava:lable i,1'1 :.:-:e <br />Dolores area. The unit cos~s We~e basea on the ex?erience <br />0= the u.s. Army Corps of En';:~~eers throughou': :cJo:::-260 B:1C <br />on the recent experience of the URE. Bureau o~ R€c:arnation <br /> <br />- ~ 4-. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.