My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02336
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02336
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:15:22 AM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:49:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
Designation Number
57
County
Adams
Arapahoe
Douglas
Community
Denver Metro Region
Stream Name
Lena Gulch
Basin
South Platte
Title
Master Drainage Plan - Revision to Lena Gulch on sheet 8 of Volume II
Date
3/1/1976
Designation Date
3/1/1976
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.
/
141
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 />v 11-.5 <br /> <br />Another assumptioh, based on recent experinece in Boulder, is that sed- <br />iment removal from the sedimentation basins would be self-supporting_ <br />The materials removed can be sold as fi)l, topsoi 1, or aggregate for <br />concrete, depending on their composition. <br /> <br />SECONDARY BENEFITS <br /> <br />The secondary or auxiliary benefits are not easi iy measured in terms of <br />dollars, but they can be so measured if time is taken to get the facts, <br />utilizing suitable experts in many disciplines. <br /> <br />Auxiliary benefits are numerous. A significant list can be prepared on <br />most urban areas by engineers, urban planners, and sociologists. The <br />following partial tabulation is presented for Lena Gulch. <br /> <br />1. Lowered ground water table <br />2. Controlled rising ground water table after urbanization <br />3. Reduced street maintenance cC6ts <br />4. Reduced street construction costs <br />5. Improved movement of traffic <br />6. Improved public health envircnment <br />7. Lower cost open space <br />8. Lower cost park areas and more recreational opportunities <br />9. I mp roved qua 1 i ty of stream <br />10. Opportunities for close-in solid waste disposal sites <br />II. Opportuni ties for lower bui ld'ing construction cost <br />12. Opportunities for creating new water suppl ies <br />13. Opportunities for lower insurance ,-ates on private <br />and Federal levels <br /> <br />These factors were considered in the unit cost prices and the estimation <br />of various schemes, but do not affect the costs significantly from alter- <br />native to alternative. The following paraqraphs provide further comments <br />on a selected number of these benefits. <br /> <br />1. Groundwater Control. The Lena Gulch basin has some high ground water <br />problems in regard to development of subdivisions for residential homes. <br /> <br />A problem area is not always apparent prior to urbanization, yet, after <br />development is completed, the percolation from lawn irrigation some- <br />times exceeds the aquifer's capacity to canoy water off. The ,-esult <br />is an increase in groundwater storage ,,'ith a rising water table. Sump <br />pumps installed to keep a basement dry nearly always discharge to a <br />sanitary sewer, increasing the load on the sewerage system, <br /> <br />A storm sewer into which the developer daylights subsurface drains to <br />control groundwater elevations provides many benefits. These benefits <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.