Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Chapter 5 <br />FLOODING PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS <br /> <br />On the basis of the hydrology-hydraulics work discussed in <br />Chapter 4, flooding problems in the basins were defined for <br />the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year floods under existing channel <br />conditions. Flood problem areas were also identified from <br />local resident experiences. <br /> <br />Flood water level, flow velocity, depth of inundation and area <br />of flooding during a selected flood event were considered in <br />each reach of channel within each drainage basin. The flood <br />water levels along the channeLs from the hydrology-hydraulics <br />study were plotted on a topographic map with 2-foot contour <br />intervals and a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet to determine the <br />horizontal limits of flooding or flooding areas. This mapping <br />is shown on the plan-profile sheets in Volume II. The high <br />flood flow velocities in the main channel and flood plain, as <br />determined from the hydraulics analysis, were important indica- <br />tions of the erosion potential along the channel. Finally, <br />the inundation depth and flooding area were used to evaluate <br />the degree of damage in the flood benefit-cost anaLysis discussed <br />below. <br /> <br />Alternative solutions to possible future flooding problems <br />were investigated reach-by-reach for each basin, as discussed <br />at the end of this chapter. The types of solutions considered <br />included channel shaping with grass lining, instalLation of <br />drop structures and underground conduits, storage detention, <br />replacement of waterway crossings, and regulatory actions. <br /> <br />A benefit cost analysis was made of the alternative solutions <br />for each basin reach. The method and results of this analysis <br />are documented in the Phase A report. The solutions suggested <br />by CH2M HILL were reviewed and commented on by the Urban <br />Drainage and Flood Control District, Arapahoe County, and <br />Jefferson County. The final solutions presented in Chapter 2 <br />were developed through the joint work of all these entities. <br /> <br />FLOODING PROBLEMS <br /> <br />The flooding problems associated with the 100-year design <br />flood are discussed below for Basin 6100 and the North Tributary <br />to Basin 6200 under existing channel conditions. The 2- and <br />10-year frequency flood drainage problems are described in <br />Chapter 5 of the Phase A report. The Kiewit Area and Direct <br />Flow Basin 6100.5 drainage problems are identified in Chapters 7 <br />and 8. <br /> <br />5-1 <br />