My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD08334
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
FLOOD08334
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:14:17 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 3:32:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Mesa
Community
Grand Junction
Stream Name
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Title
Colorado River Flood Analysis
Date
1/1/1984
Prepared For
Mesa County
Prepared By
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
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.
/
32
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 />provide any protection tlJ the auto salvage yard upstream. The length of levee <br />for this alternative WOL 1d be approximately 1000 feet as opposed to 4000.feet <br />-_~".''''''_,"_"__,_",,,'_ri <br />for Improvement #~, The cost of this improvement "auld be on the order of <br />}~0~9Pll.~ ~-fEl~()i"' ~ i <br /> <br />Another possible impro'rement would be to ~_redge__~_~,~,existing islands just <br />downstream of the Grand P,venue bridge. This improvement would benefit areas <br />adjacent to and immediatE!ly upstream of the islands. Protection of tl1..e existing <br />sewer crossing along the eastern end of the islands would be required. -, Natural <br />flOwpat'ternsof-iti-e--river may tend to deposit sediments in a wider" shallow <br />channel section. In summary, dredging the is1a,nds may be beneficial, however, <br />it is not recommended for flood improvement. <br /> <br />Construction costs pre~;ented were estimated for each of the proposed <br />improvements to give an idea of the magnitude of the improvement. A 10% cost <br />was included to cover engineering, and a 20% contingency was added to include <br />costs for incidentals. Right-of-way costs were not covered in the estimates. <br /> <br />Quantities for each improvement were estimated from the existing mapping and <br />based upon assumed levee cross sections. The assumptions include: typical cross <br />section with 3:1 side slopes, 10 foot top widths, seeded grass protection, and 2 <br />feet of excavation and recompaction of the existing levee's in areas where <br />irrprovements are proposed. <br /> <br />Unit prices for material:; and labor were obtained from cost data for the Grand <br />Junction area based in discussions with the City Engineer" and from published <br />information collected by our firm. <br /> <br />The costs presented in this Study were based on conceptua'l designs of proposed <br />improvements and should be used for ~9_l11jJ_arisonEurposes only. Actual <br />construction costs will be influenced by the condition of the existing levees <br />based on a detailed soils analysis, availability of fill materials, right-of-way <br />costs, complexity and si,1e of the project and the size and type of contractors <br />and their efficiency and methods of operation, The extent of this contract and <br />study effort does not allow for analysis in enough detail to guarantee these <br />costs in any way, <br /> <br />Permanent Levee Guidelines <br /> <br />There are no step -by-step procedures govern i ng the des i gn and con struct i on of <br />earth levees. Each project area will have its own specific conditions and <br />des i gn prob lems, However, general gu ide 1 i nes can be determi ned that app 1y for <br />a 11 1 evee des i gns, <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.