Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Table 2. Peak Discharges Along Pawnee Creek Main Channel Under ExistiDg Conditions <br /> <br /> <br />100~Year <br />(cm)i .... <br />2226 <br />2226 <br />6645 <br />8611 <br /> <br />(ilfs) <br />*Mouth (South Platte River 100- Y ear Floodplain) 1517 <br />*Upstream HWY 6 1517 <br />*Upstream CR. 33 2945 <br />*Upstream CR. 31 3264 <br />* Split flows cause reduced discharge in the main channel <br /> <br />50- Year. <br />. (em) <br />2026 <br />2026 <br />5434 <br />6729 <br /> <br />Ilydraulics <br /> <br />The hydraulic analysis for this report was completed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-2 <br />computer program, Version 4.6.2. Existing HEC-2 models from previous studies were used as a basis <br />for the hydraulic analysis and modified to study the proposed improvements in more detail. The <br />source of the base HEC-2 models for Pawnee Creek is the 1992 SCS Report. The base models for <br />Pawnee Creek Overflow, within the City of Sterling, came from the 1983 Leaf/RCI Report. Flow <br />measurements taken by the CWCB from high water marks during the 1997 flood were used to help <br />calibrate and refine the hydraulic model. Flow characteristics for proposed future improvements were <br />modeled using HEC-2 in conjunction with weir overflow equations. <br /> <br />Hydraulic analysis was made to determine the carrying capacity of Pawnee Creek itself and to help <br />define where and how much out-of-channel flow occurs. Significant diversion of flows occurs at <br />several locations. Overflow spills out of the main channel occur near CR. 29 and 31, and along the <br />HWY 6/Railroad embankments. <br /> <br />Alternative Improvements <br /> <br />Based on a review of the existing reports and discussions with the project sponsors and local citizens, <br />six alternative improvement projects were selected for further study. A conceptual design of all of the <br />proposed projects was completed in sufficient detail to determine relative construction quantities, cost <br />estimates, and expected benefits. Approximate locations of the alternatives are shown on Figure 4. <br />Each Alternative, with the exception of the "No Action" Alternative, protects varying lengths of the <br />area surrounding the lower portions of Pawnee Creek, and the Pawnee Creek overflow. The <br />alternatives studied are as follows: <br /> <br />Alternative No.1: "No Action" Alternative. This alternative would not result in any construction of <br />flood prevention improvements. In the event of future floods, high damage to cropland, farm houses, <br />residential homes in the City of Sterling, commercial buildings, roads and railroads would very likely <br />occur. Over $10 million in damage occurred from the 1997 flood, in the lower reaches of Pawnee <br />Creek. This alternative was not acceptable to the City of Sterling, Logan County and the majority of <br />Citizens. <br /> <br />1-7 <br />