Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~TH[~Cj,~-;~rb ENO-INJI::BJRINO- CONI3 r..:r:L'TAN l.''''_~ '!- <br /> <br />ML L c Scott Tucker <br />DG 418/77 <br />Marc> 31, 197'7 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />fE_~_~i.~!~p;~l"Y _ !2!~~~tg r:t~ <br /> <br />Preliminary designs for the First. (:reek have been prepared in ac- <br />cord,3.nce with the decision reached in disclJssions with the -Urban Drain-- <br />age ,nd Flood Control Districtc <br /> <br />Improved channel sections were df's~gnd fa:: the 100-cyear flows with <br />adeq-late riprllp protection provided whe]~ever necessary. The ma~orj_ty of <br />the :?irst Creek channel and the entire ~ribJtar~l T channel_ has beerl <br />recollunended for Flood Plain Zoning only. <br /> <br />The general criteria for designing stc-Jctu,"es crossing First C:reelt <br />was to pass the 10-year flows with structural protection against the 100- <br />year flows. Waterway for major crossing were d~~signed to pass the 100- <br />year flows under pressure flow conditi,oTLs ~itho\lt overtopping the road- <br />way. The Fir:;t Creek has been channelizf~d in c!~rtain reaches to pass <br />the lOO-year flow. <br /> <br />Cost Estimat~es <br />--- -~------ <br /> <br />Construction costs fo_r the proj cc t havl= been computed. The total <br />cons~ruction cost is estimated to be $2,290,000 (February, 1975 prices)c <br />This includes 20 percent for continger_cj.cs ,Inri ~In additiona-L 8 percent <br />Eor l~ngineerillg, legal and administrativf~ t{~es. <br /> <br />The over~lll estimated project cost pYl~:;entE~d ill this report is <br />higher than the estimate given in the Phase_ A rE'port due to changes to <br />improvements proposed under Plan A. This I.llcrease is also due t,o the <br />designs having been further modified from I,.hose llsed in the Phase p, <br />repol~t and higher construction unit cost.~; u:;ed, <br /> <br />A table of average annual cos.ts of Lhc "Continuation of Existing <br />Cond:~tions!l plan and recommended plan i~:, 31:;0 prl'sented in Table IV-Lf to <br />read:~ly allow a comparison of the benefits 'ivhich can be derived hy im- <br />plementing the proposed schemec <br /> <br />Cone lus i or:. <br />~----- - <br /> <br />The work performed under Phase B conf"[,nns ::>ur conclusion of the <br />Phase A report. that the improvements t:) the First Creek drainageway are <br />economical in reducing flood damage ill the First: Creelc <br />