Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OTHER SOLU'I'10ilS CONSIDf.;Rf.,'[), FOUNTAH' CR~~F;K <br />A:" AND li1l THE VICINITY OF PUe'aLO, COLORADO <br /> <br />. <br />I <br />! <br />f <br /> <br />19. Dcs.gn and cost estimates were prepared for alternative <br />projects WhlCh would provide various degrees of protection for the <br />urban area of Pueblo frOID floods On Fountain Creek, The projects are <br />descr~bed in the follow.ng paragraphs and shown On plates 11 through <br />140fthisattacrunent. <br /> <br />20. CRAN!lEU'lAUON, FOUNTA!/! CREEK THROUGH PUEBLO. - Channel <br />improvement for standard project flood protection (225,000 c.f.s,) on <br />Fountain Creek through Pueblo was considered. The project would begin <br />about 2.5 miles upstrcam frornU.S, SO Bypass Highway bridgc<lndcxtend <br />downstream to the confluence with the Arkansas River, a distance of <br />about S miles< A basic design requirement would be minimum channel <br />widths becaase of the proximity of industrial areas and other develop- <br />ments along Fountain Creek as it flows through Pueblo. Existing rail_ <br />road and highway bridges restrict the depth of flow. Therefore, a con- <br />crete-lined channel would be n~ceSS<lry to obtain the optim~~ roughnoss <br />coefficient. Also a flow of SPF magnitude would produce high velocities <br />and necessitate concrete lining to prevent erosion. The potential plan <br />would conSist c~sentially of an 8-inch thiCk concrete-lined channel 300 <br />feet wide and about 16 feet deep. The lower mile would gradually ~.iden <br />to a base width uf 500 feet at the confluence with Arkansas River. The <br />upper mile would have a riprapped section and a concrete_lined section <br />narrowing fronl 2,OOO-foot base width at the beginning of the rip rapt" <br />300 feet, At locat~on5 of high energy flow, the concrete thickness <br />woulclbe increased to 12 inchl'S_ Levees ".ould be constructed where <br />neCe~5:lry to prondo 4 feet of freeboard. The total fast cost was <br />estimated to be $26,601,000, w.th annual charges of $1,471,000 The <br />project is not economically feasible. Even if feasible, the project <br />would not be cOll\patible with environmental phnning in the area, Plans <br />and pn,flles of the pro;"ct arc shown on P1!lte~ 11 and 12 Engineering <br />features arc listed in Table 12, and the COSt estimate is presented in <br />Table 13. <br /> <br />[-27 <br /> <br />TABLE 12. .-CnginoeringFeatures, Fountain Creek Channoli.ation <br />(225,000 c.f.s.) Pueblo, Colorado <br /> <br />"hao""l, <br />Length, feet <br />flasewidth, feet <br />Side slopes <br />Slope protection <br />Maximum dosign discharge, c.f.s. <br />~~aximu", depth 0 f flow, feet <br />Freeboard. feet <br /> <br />24,425 <br />Varies 300-500 <br />lon2 <br />Concrete-lined <br />225,000 <br />16 <br />, <br /> <br />Relocations: <br />Railroad bridge extension <br />Iligh".ay bridge extension <br />Relocate ^T~SF Railway spurline <br />ReIocate College road bridge <br /> <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />1_28 <br />