FLOOD05149

• 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

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

not undermine the bridge support but exposed a longer section of
the piling which became more vulnerable to bending by side
loads. The longer columns were weaker than the original length
column and buckled more easily from the side load of the flood
driven debris. For several bridges the channel bottom has eroded
to well below the original bed elevation and the abutments and
their footings are totally unprotected and very susceptible to
under cutting.

The damage to private improvements was more widespread and
difficult to categorize, however, useful material and information
was obtained from the ASCS, the Delta County Emergency
Preparedness Coordinator, and interviews with the private owners
along the river. The flood damage to private property was
extensive and distributed along all the streams and rivers
throughout the County. Not all of the damages were reported.
From interviews with the owners and ASCS the reason indicated for
the low reporting was a limited amount of emergency money.

Most of the arable land in Delta County is adjacent to the rivers
and streams, on relatively flat, farmable ground, adjacent to
irrigation water and on good soil. Good farmable land cannot be
moved. To insure a continued agricultural economic base the
developed farm land must be protected from incursions by the
river. If private lands were protected like the sewage lagoon or
the bridges the cost would be prohibitive. The alternate solution
is to cleanup the debris, Qlean out the sand an~~gY~.~s~~~~
,rechannelize th~-!~~o reduce the-IosEIO'r-vaIUaole farm JLa~- ~ ~,
----------/ -I Ioj-
During interviews with public and private representatives it1-j,~ ~
became obvious that a comprehensive river cleanup plan is t'<!")
necessary. Work on the river by an individual public jurisdiction ~,
or by individual private landowners directly and often times
detrimentally affects other downstream owners. Because of the
current ~oo~ hy~g~Q~ndition of the riveLs and the magnitude
of potential future flooa-(Ta~e a, a result of debris deposits,
immediate attention by professional '"engineers and technicians
should be dedicated to developin~ a cleanup plan and
implementation steps as soon as possible. \ ,_ r "l I" (>
. f).; tA1)1-:t" ~p..?.:;, te fYl'.c~,^jf)!JV.-."" Dd" r~"~

DEBRIS REMOVAL & RIVER CHANNELIZATION COST ESTIMATE

On 23 October, 1984 a field inspection was made of the
Uncompahgre, Gunnison and North Fork of the Gunnison Rivers. The
survey and aerial photographs taken during the 1984 spring floodseJM0g
were used to determine the amount of debris and to what extent f~~~
channelization and bank protection could preserve the existing , /
bridges over these rivers during 1985 and subsequent years of
flood runoff. From this wor~specific b~idqes~~ identified ~
the County which exhibit the greatest prooability of being damaged
from floating debris and gravel bar rechannelization. The cost of
debris removal was based on the assumption that large debris would
be gathered into piles and burned to reduce the cost of haulage.

-2-