My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD05115
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD05115
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:11:55 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 1:16:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Boulder
Weld
Community
Erie
Stream Name
Coal Creek
Basin
South Platte
Title
Floodplain Information Report
Date
8/1/1980
Prepared For
Erie / Boulder County / Weld County
Prepared By
Water Resource Consultants
Contract/PO #
&&
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.
/
64
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 />CnAPTER VIII <br />FLOOD PROTECTION CRITERIA <br /> <br />CHAPTER IX <br />ALTERNATIVE PL&~S CO~SIDERED <br /> <br />The agencles sponsoring this study; consisting of the To~ of Erie, <br />Weld County, Boulder County and the Colotado Water Conservation Board, <br />provided the criteria used to develop a flood control and floodplain <br />management plan. The objective of the plan is to prevent or reduce potentiaL <br />flood damages along the study reach. <br /> <br />A. Genetal <br /> <br />To develop a flood control and floodplain management plan, the study area <br />waS divided into four reaches ~ith similar characteristics based on the fLood <br />protection criteria. The reaches were selected as follows' <br /> <br />Protection of existing habitable structures which are in the flooded <br />areas shown on Plates I through 4 was considered of primary importance. The <br />protection of roads and railroads from damage to embankments or drainage <br />structures was considered secondary to protection of habitable structures. <br />The lowest priority waS given to protection of undeveloped land. <br /> <br />~~HI <br /> <br />Upstream limit of study to Perry Street <br /> <br />REACH 2 <br /> <br />Perry Street to Briggs Street <br /> <br />REACH 3 <br /> <br />Briggs Street to Kenosha Road <br /> <br />REACH 4 ~ Kenosha Road to do~strea~ limit of study <br /> <br />Emphasis has been placed on development of an economical and practical <br />plan which is feosible to implement. Only i~provement5 Which would provide <br />optimum benefits were selected for the final plan. <br /> <br />The alternative plans which were considered for each reach are briefly <br />described in the following .ection. Each plan has been reviewed by the <br />TeChnical Cowmittee prior to selection of the recowmended plan. The recom- <br />mended plan is conceptual and needs further detailed study and detailed <br />design. Refer to Plates lZ through 15 for specific locations of olternative <br />plan improve~nts. The basic alternative plan items are su"~rited in <br />Table-IO and the narrative description. follow. Approximate cost estimates <br />wete prepared for comparison of items in the screening process and review <br />of potential benefits. <br /> <br />- 7Z - <br /> <br />- 73 . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.