My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD10235
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
FLOOD10235
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:12:30 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 5:01:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Fremont
Community
Canon City
Stream Name
Arkansas River & Tributaries
Basin
Arkansas
Title
Hazard Mitigation 404 Grand Application for FEMA - Includes 3 Maps
Date
2/1/1998
Prepared For
FEMA
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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 /> <br />Partial Detention Alternative (Hogback Detention Master Plan) <br /> <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 />The Partial Detention Alternative is the flood mitigation scheme as proposed in the Hogback <br />Detention Master Plan by Graef, Anhalt, ScWoemer & Associates, Inc. (February, 1995). The <br />plan calls for seven small detention ponds to be formed by constructing low height dams across <br />openings in the lower, eastern hogback. Locations for the seven detention ponds proposed in the <br />Master Plan are shown on Figure II-2. Larger scale delineations of the ponds and tributary <br />drainage basins have been reproduced from the Master Plan and are included in this application <br />as oversized attachments labeled Sheets 1,2 and 3. <br /> <br />According to hydrologic modeling results presented in the Master Plan, the proposed detention <br />ponds would provide an approximate 50 percent reduction in peak storm flows generated by the <br />25-, 50- and 1 DO-year, 24-hr storms. Modeling results for shorter duration, thunderstorm type <br />events are not presented in the Master Plan. Percentage reductions in peak flows for <br />thunderstorm events should exceed reductions for general storms because of the lower volumes <br />associated with shorter duration events. <br /> <br />Estimated sediment trap efficiencies for the proposed detention ponds are not presented in the <br />Master Plan. Based on observations by the City, silt sized particles make up a significant portion <br />of the sediment load carried by runoff from the hogback drainage basins. Because of the fine <br />nature of these particles and relatively short detention times (20 minutes or less) provided by the <br />ponds it is thought that a portion of the incoming sediment load will pass through the pond <br />outlets and continue to be deposited in the City. For purposes of benefit/cost analysis of <br />alternatives in this report, it will be assumed that the Partial Detention Alternative ponds will trap <br />75 percent of the incoming sediment load and that clean-up costs are proportional to sediment <br />load. <br /> <br />Volumes of water stored in the seven proposed detention ponds during the 24-hour, lDO-year <br />storm would range from 0.4 to 2.0 acre-feet. Maximum ponding depths would range from 3.3 to <br />5.2 feet and inundated area would range from 0.15 to 0.35 acres. <br /> <br />Outlet works for each of the ponds would consist of an 18- or 24-inch diameter corrugated metal <br />pipe (CMP) through the dam discharging to an improved ditch. The ditches would convey <br />reduced stormwater flows from the base of the east hogback to City collection facilities, a <br />distance ranging from 250 to 1,100 feet. Ditches would be trapezoidal in shape. 2 feet wide at <br />the bottom and 3 feet deep with 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) side slopes. At the pond outlet and <br />along steeper reaches of each ditch, rip rap lining would be required. <br /> <br />Details of preliminary design parameters for each of the proposed detention basins are presented <br />in Table II-I. Note that Detention Basin 1 (see Figure II-2), the largest facility proposed in the <br />Master Plan, was built in 1995 and is an existing structure. It has been included in Table II-I for <br />the sake of completeness, but is excluded from the cost estimate for the alternative. <br /> <br />Cost estimates presented in the Master Plan have been updated using bid data from the <br />construction of Detention Basin 1. Unit costs utilized in developing the updated cost estimates <br /> <br />II-2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.