My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD05149
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD05149
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:48:25 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 1:17:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Delta
Community
Delta
Stream Name
Gunnison, Uncompahgre Rivers
Basin
Gunnison
Title
Cost Estimates for Removal of Debris, Bank Protection and River Training Along the Uncompahgre, Gunnison and the North Fork of the Gunnison Rivers
Date
1/1/1980
Prepared For
Delta County
Prepared By
Mt Highland Engineering
Floodplain - Doc Type
Miscellaneous
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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 />II <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 />I <br /> <br />From the 23 October, 1984 field inspection of the Gunnison, North <br />Fork of the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Rivers, specific bridges were <br />identified in the County which exhibit the potential for severe <br />damage from floating debris which has been deposited upstream of <br />those bridges in the 1983 and 1984 floods. Particular attention <br />was paid to these bridges and the river reach upstream of these <br />bridges. <br /> <br />For purposes of the cost estimate, certain <br />about the amount of material, access and <br />affect the cost of removal: <br /> <br />assumptions were made <br />other factors that will <br /> <br />1. Debris would be removed from the channel and channelized <br />floodplain. The trees and other debris on the definable <br />bank would not be removed. <br /> <br />2. The debris would be collected into piles every 200 feet <br />and burned to reduce the bulk and increase the ease of <br />handling and removing the material. One person would be <br />dedicated to control of the burning and no fire would be <br />left unattended. <br /> <br />3. The remaining material would be removed to landfill. <br />This would include ashes, unburned debris and streambed <br />material discolored by burning. The area around the burn <br />would be cleaned to natural channel color and shape. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />The job <br />County <br />and all <br /> <br />would require a full time inspector, hired by <br />to insure that the specifications were carried <br />safety precautions were observed. <br /> <br />the <br />out <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />The contractor would bid on a per acre price for <br />based on the calculated acreage of preflagged <br />areas. If, during the job, additional work was <br />the contractor would be required to removed the <br />from those areas at the price bid per acre. <br /> <br />removal <br />target <br />needed, <br />debris <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />The contractor would have <br />working conditions and other <br />increase the bid price. The <br />included in the estimate at 15%. <br /> <br />time constraints, winter <br />risk factors that would <br />estimated increase is <br /> <br />From these assumptions, the actual cost per acre for removal of <br />debris can be estimated: <br /> <br />1. The density of the debris above each of the bridges will <br />effect the cost for removal but the effect will be much <br />smaller than the distance the debris can be carried or <br />moved to separate piles for burning. The most economic <br />operation would be to push or carry the material a <br />distance of approximately 100 feet which would clear an <br />area of about one (1) acre. <br /> <br />A-I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.