My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD06837
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
FLOOD06837
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:10:06 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:32:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Alamosa
Community
Alamosa
Stream Name
Rio Grande
Basin
Rio Grande
Title
Master Drainage Plan Alamosa
Date
3/1/1982
Prepared For
Alamosa
Prepared By
McCarty-Hurst
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.
/
52
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 />I <br />I <br />I 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 />VI. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS <br />A. BASINS I THROUGH VIII <br /> <br />Favorable alternatives that appear feasible and that will reduce or <br />eliminate the flooding problems in the Alamosa area, as discussed in <br />the previous section, are presented in a basin-by-basin basis herein. <br />The reader should cross reference the discussion of alternatives with <br />Figure 2 for the location of drainage basins, design points, and pro- <br />posed alternatives. Alternatives not reported were investigated and <br />eliminated from further consideration as they were judged impractical <br />or cost-prohibitive. One alternative considered was large grass-lined <br />or concrete-lined channels. These are not practical because of high <br />right-of-way (ROW) costs and the requirement of removing buildings <br />that the project is intending to protect. <br /> <br />The location of the proposed sewers was also considered as an alter- <br />native. The sewer line proposed in 6th Street was also evaluated as <br />if located in the Main Street ROWand in the railroad ROW south of <br />6th Street. Construction in the Main Street alignment would disrupt <br />the main business area, the main traffic flow through the city, and <br />create higher costs due to limited availability of ground due to <br />other major utilities. Construction in the railroad area was elim- <br />inated because of high land acquisition costs, increased structural <br />loadings, and disruption of the railroad activities. <br /> <br />Each aiternative studied will require an outlet into the Rio Grande <br />River. These outlets from the storm sewer systems (inlets into the <br />Rio Grande) will be at or near the elevation of the bottom of the <br />Rio Grande. When the water rises in the Rio Grande, water will back- <br />flow into the city's existing and proposed storm sewer systems caus- <br />ing flooding. Thus each system, existing and proposed, must be <br />fitted with a flap gate. Flap gates allow flow to drain from the <br />pipe to the river but not from the river into the pipe. No separate <br />discussion is made for each basin regarding the use of flap gates. <br /> <br />-26- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.