My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD06396
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
FLOOD06396
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:08:53 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:13:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Mesa
Community
Riverside
Stream Name
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Title
Section 205 Reconnaissance Report for Flood Control
Date
11/1/1991
Prepared For
Mesa County
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
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.
/
107
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />of a stable slope and foundation for the levee. Such a levee <br />would also destroy the minor existing wildlife habitat along the <br />riverbank in the Riverside area and highly vegetated riparian <br />habitat in Rosevale. Additionally, the city of Grand Junction <br />would like to establish a recreation park between the levee and <br />the riverbank as part of the riverfront redevelopment. For these <br />economic and environmental factors (as well as local planning <br />considerations), the bankside levee measure was deleted from <br />further consideration. <br /> <br />A setback levee was considered as a structural solution <br />which would be in line with local planning desires, would be more <br />economically and environmentally sensitive than most other <br />measures in the Riverside area, and would be advanced for <br />detailed study. However, a setback levee for Rosevale would have <br />to be about a mile long with outlet considerations for a creek at <br />the downstream end. In addition, the bulk of the levee would <br />traverse highly vegetated riparian habitat. Such a levee for a <br />dispersed residential area was found not warranted and would be <br />uneconomical and environmentally destructive and was dropped from <br />further consideration. <br /> <br />A floodwall (especially in combination with a setback levee) <br />appeared to be a promising measure for the Riverside area. In <br />order to avoid the riverbank and its attendant constraints, as <br />well as to avoid destroying a substantial portion of Riverside <br />Park, a floodwall section was considered further in combination <br />with a levee at Riverside. A floodwall for Rosevale would be <br />economically infeasible as well as environmentally damaging. <br /> <br />(6) Summarv. - The following measures were identified <br />as being most effective and were retained for formulation into <br />alternative plans: the levee and floodwall, roadway elevation, <br />elevation of individual structures, and purchase (buy-out) of <br />individual structures. <br /> <br />b. Alternative Plans. - The measures retained for further <br />study were then formulated into alternative plans for both <br />Riverside and Rosevale. Hydraulic studies indicated that <br />structural flood control improvements at Riverside would cause no <br />more than two-tenths of a foot rise in the lOO-year water-surface <br />elevation. Due to the large size and physical characteristics of <br />the Colorado River floodway, any flood control project on one <br />side of the river would have an almost negligible effect on the <br />other. <br /> <br />II <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.