My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD03463
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
FLOOD03463
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:15:22 AM
Creation date
10/4/2006 11:47:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
Designation Number
72
County
Adams
Arapahoe
Douglas
Community
Denver Metro Region
Stream Name
Van Bibber Creek
Basin
South Platte
Title
Major Drainageway Planning - Van Bibber Creek
Date
3/1/1977
Designation Date
7/1/1977
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.
/
65
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 />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 />-10- <br /> <br />Proposed Drainageway Improvement Alternatives <br /> <br />In Phase A, after all of the special technical studies and analyses <br />were completed and the problem areas determined, drainageway <br />improvements were considered as alternatives for eliminating <br />or minimizing the flood damages associated with Van Bibber <br />Creek. A number of approaches were considered to resolve the <br />flooding problems on the creek and approximate costs were <br />determined for comparative purposes. <br /> <br />improvements in Arvada. <br />Alternate 3 - Implementation of Alternate 2 utilizing <br />stormwater detention. <br /> <br />The general approaches to sOlving the potential flood problems <br />on Van Bibber Creek included: <br /> <br />These alternates represented solutions to the present flooding <br />problems associated with Van Bibber Creek, but each alternate <br />was not to be viewed as a total, separate system. The intent was <br />that various aspects of each alternate be intermixed to provide <br />a most effective drainageway plan. Each of the Phase A alternates <br />is summarized in the following paragraphs. <br /> <br />(1) Channelization <br />(2) Underground conduits <br />(3) Regulatory measures <br />(4) Stormwater detention (reservoirs) <br />(5) Combination of above <br />(6) Do nothing <br /> <br />Alternate 1 - This alternate proposed that no new action or <br />measures be undertaken on Van Bibber Creek." It is designated <br />a "do nothing" approach but it acutally does connotate some <br />control. The City of Arvada has a strong flood plain ordinance <br />and is qualified for flood insurance under the regular flood <br />insurance program. Under this alternative, the regular measures <br />would be utilized to maintain status quo and avoid the creation <br />of future flood hazards. These measures would tend to minimize <br />potential flood damage through the long term but would not <br />totally eliminate them. Through the flood insurance program, <br />any holder of insurance would be paying a premium slightly <br />greater than the anticipated damages through the premium period. <br />No benefits would be generated until a large number of floods <br />have occurred and the flood plain ordinance has restricted the <br />construction in flood prone areas. Many benefits would be <br />recognized over a long term. <br /> <br />As reported, the potential flood damages calculated for Van <br />Bibber were relatively high. On the main stream, under existing <br />flood plain conditions, flood damages were estimated at approxi- <br />mately $18 million, based on 1974 cost information. The greatest <br />share of these damages, about 65%, occur within Arvada downstream <br />of Oak Street extended. About 30% of the total damages occur <br />at street and irrigation ditch crossings within the County. About <br />5% of all the damages are attributed to the channel and flood <br />plain area in the County. <br /> <br />Following discussions with the UD&FCD, Arvada and Jefferson <br />County, three alternatives were selected for further study in <br />Phase A. These alternatives included: <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Alternate 1 - Do nothing to the flood plain and maintain <br />status quo with existing regulatory measures. <br />Alternate 2 - Implement minor flood plain improvrnents, <br />including road and irrigation ditch improvements, in <br />Jefferson County, and implement major structural <br /> <br />At the time the Phase A study was completed, Jefferson County <br />was working on a flood plain ordinance. Presently, the County <br />has adopted an ordinance which would provide a basis for <br />regulatory control of the flood plain area. Also, flood insurance <br />studies are presently being completed which will eventually <br />qualify the County for inclusion into the regular flood insurance <br />program. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.