My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD05030
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD05030
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:48:02 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 1:12:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Garfield
Community
Silt
Stream Name
Local Drainage
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Title
Floodplain Management Study
Date
7/1/1987
Prepared For
Silt
Prepared By
USDA Soil Conservation Service
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.
/
69
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 />Alternative No. 1 <br /> <br />Tnis a lternat ive >Ii I 1 i nvol ve clea~i~g dnd ~nlarge"'ent of tne Lower <br /> <br />Cactus Valley Ditch from Ninth Street to ~ spi 11 locat ion ~t the City Park <br />Drainage. The cap~city of the enlarged ditch would be Sufficient to cdrry <br />flood flows from Seventh Street Basin and normal jrrigatio~ flows (50 cfs). <br />Some dike work would also be necessary at County Road 231 on First Street <br />~asin similar to item 4 in Alternative No.1. Regular maintenance would be <br />important with this dlterndtive. There would be no improvements to West <br />Bas in, Sixteenth Street Basin, or E~st Basin. <br />The followi~g tables show structural measures, estimated construction <br />costs. and benefits for each of tne ~bove alternatives. <br /> <br />STRUCTURAL MEASURES <br /> <br />Work Item Unit AH 1 Alt2 Alt ) Alt4 <br />Concrete Drop InletStr Number , , 1 1 <br />Concrete Ditch Uni ~g Feet 3850 _u 4870 no <br />Pipeline Feet 2400 3430 n_ --- <br />DitchCleanin9 ~ Enl~rg. Feet 1380 1380 1380 6250 <br />Earth Dike C"_ 'd. 11,700 12,200 u- no <br /> <br />COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 1/ <br /> <br />Alternative Cost <br />C <br /> <br />Alt n <br /> <br />Alt#2 <br /> <br />An,3 <br /> <br />Alt ~4 <br /> <br />om anson <br />Construction Cost , 962,000 , 783,900 I 613,800 I 209,900 <br />Land ~;9hts Cost 227,200 167,200 99,000 99,000 <br />Eng....Adm. Asst. 298,200 243,000 190,300 65,000 <br />Total Inst. Cost n:-41l7~O"O $r;19<f;um I 903,100 , 373,900 <br />Annual A,lternatjve <br />Cost and Effects " Altj4 <br />Comparison Alt ~l Altj2 A1< <br />Annualized Cost \ 154,700 \ 124,300 I 94,100 \ 39,500 <br />Annu~lized Benefits 13,500 9,400 11,200 7,100 <br />Net Annualizen I -141.200 1 _114,900 , - 82,'100 \ - 32.400 <br />~enefi ts <br /> <br />1/ Price base September 1986, Discounted and annualized at 8 7/8% <br />for 25 years. <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />The following recommendations are inCluded for consideration in reducing <br />pote~t ia 1 flood damages. <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />Local units of government should implement a flood plai~ management <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />or flood hazard mitigation plan. <br />Existing restrictions th~t contribute to overbank floodi'9 should be <br />corrected where possible ~nd when possible. <br />Structural alternatives studied herein no not appear to be economically <br />feasible projects. This is primarily because of the expected Shallow <br />depth of flow wjtnin the flOOd plain. Steep slopes through town <br />generally disperse flood waters except in a few locations. The most cost <br />effective alternative studied is Alternative No.4 discussed under <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />"Structural Flood Control Measures". This set of treatment measures <br /> <br />Should be considered in more detail. <br /> <br />4. Owners and occupdntsof bui1dings ann other property within or <br />adj~cent to the delineated flood boundary should consider flood <br /> <br />insurance. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />Public information and education programs on flood hazards should be <br /> <br />made ava!ldble to the public. <br />6. Native habitdt along the main channels Should be maintained to <br />preserve channel stability and provide wildlife habitat. <br /> <br />-26- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.