FLOOD04002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iI!J.13 Vlll.14 other QP~nings s~oJect to flood ioy. Otn<<r factors which must tie adoressed wheofloodproofing a structure art! buoyancy, particularly on structures wltn b~sements, locat ion of gas and el~ctrical ut i1 Hies, wastewater and storm- water tlackflow prevention ana provision for ~ergency power ano dewatering. Reach 2 Alternatives A n\lmber of structural measures were investigateo toreouce the flood hazard to Coors Industries b~i ldings in Reach 2. Selecteo structural improvements include tne followiny measures. Floodproofiny of privately OwneD residences and cOrmlercial or industrial Duildings would be left to the oiscretion of the individual owner, private flood)!roofingmeasuresarenot included under this alternative althOugh they are to tle encouraged. o Remove tneCrawford Streetoridge, the power tluilding foottlridye and the greenhouse footbridge. o F1oodproof doorways, garaye openings and other openings at various structures along ttll< creek such as the brewery Duildlng, the power ouilding, tnelolellness Center, the greenhouse, ther<<sidence and the containernuilding. o Jnshll a flow restrictor at the entrance to the Farmers Highlin<l Canal conduit to prevent surcharge of the canal downstream. o Raise ap~roximately 900 l.f. of the concrete chaMel wall along the south side of the creek tletween thepo<ler builaing footbridge an d the residence. o Remove ancl relocate tne drop structure at the rai1ro.d bridge near Mclntyre Street to lower the creek invert aM allow the tOO_year flow to remain within the channel uanks. Remedial Improvements In addition to thefloodproofingmeasuresdescrin<<d above, this alternative would also include the following remeDial improvements, that is, th()semea- sures whiCh provide immediate protection or relief out are not necessarily long. term solutions. 1. To protect the residential areafromtneinitiallOO-yearfloodcrest, a ldndSCdpedoermcoulooe;llaced along the west side of Maple Street bet- ween 9th and 10th Str~ets. This ber;n would divert init ial overflows southwdrdtowarathecreek. However, it would not prevent subsequent in- undation of the area from tlackwater from the loIa,ninyton Street cridge. 2. The exist ing bridge, at Ford Street and Washington Aven~e would De st~t:'ngthened against impact load 1ng tly debris. laden flOOd f low5. In addition, II vent in') ,y>lem woul(j <0<, i",talled at "dCh bridg.. to a:\o'...- traplledairtoesca,.,efrombeneatnthebridgedecKsduringhighflows and ,.,revent flotat ion of the bridge deCKS. '~hile these measures will improve tne situation, the orielgas will still tle exposed to damage an:! over- topping. Additional flood protectlOn tecnniques that ar~ clos~ly relat~o to Coors pro- cess~s, such <IS surcnilr~e ilnd backflo~ prevention, a~~ being jnvestjgat~c by tl>eengineeringstclttclt Coors Industrles. An importclnt interim alternative is the prepilrat ion of a FlOOd Emer~ency P I an that would identify key person- nel, equipment and materials to be mobil Ized and ,.,roceuur.:s to be fo Ilowcc i~ thecoseof a lilrge flood event. fheplan snould prioritize builaings and structures to tle protectea and place emphasis on oenris control dt the varlOUS bridg<<s spdnning the Creek. J. (lvertlow clnd riprapprotection would be installed at the Water Treatment rlilr.t ocr~ dc~r."t~c~~ of U.~. 5. 4. A Flood Awareness Campaign should be developed by the City of Golden to ~OUCdte the cit izens regard iny the Cledr Creek floodplain. Pub I ic meet Ings cQ~ld be convened to adv I se c i t izens and answer quest ions re- yardlny Cleu <:reek. Methods to minlmlze flood domoge would oe re- vi..wed. ReaCh j Alternatives Reach 3 is largelyvocant and tneon:yf1ood damages attributable to this ar<<a are oetlfis deposH,on, Channel erosion ana scour, tlarticularly at the ;:oors Tran, load Ral lroad brld~e, at Cdnal d i'lersion head gates and at the ::>enver Water Je~artment raw water transmiss ion conduit cross ing. Tnerefore, floodplain regulation was tne only alternative considered for this reach.