Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The accur.mlated present h'orth of flood d;u:\age hhi.eh is char~ <br />acteristic of the Slaughterhouse Gulch channel is graphically <br />sho~n in Figure 4, Accur.lulated Flood Damage. The curve <br />entitled existing channel condition represents the acc~\nulatec <br />present worth of the average annual d<lmage hhlch would occur <br />through the stud)' area, ,..ithout changing the existing channel <br />conditions, over a fifty-year period. Improving the channel <br />to a 2-year capacity would reduce the flood damages to the <br />n:agnitude indicated by the next lower line. The same is tn;(o' <br />for the 5, 10 and 100-yea::- improvements. \'lith il lOO-year <br />design, all damages hould be eliminated and the total benefit <br />derived would be the present worth of flood carnages presently <br />associated ,,,.ith the existing flood plain. As these curves <br />represent damages, Figure 5, Accumulated Flood Benefits, repre- <br />sents the benefits which would be recogni~ed if improvements or <br />control actions wore made on the gulch. These benefits repre- <br />sunt tile reduction in potential carnage from the existing <br />channel condition. <br /> <br />SECTIO,\' VI <br /> <br />AI.TF.k\ATIVES <br /> <br />Aft('r all of th~ afofumt!ntion<:d investigations and analyses <br />are complete and t];e prohlem ineas deterr;!ined, improvements <br />of the type delineated in this section "ill be considered as <br />alternatives for elim~no.tinr, or minimi~ing the flood damages <br />presently associated with Sl:mghterhouse Gulch. By setting <br />up cost estimate information on the basis of accumulat?d C?st <br />over various rt'aches along the Gulch, any type of comb~natlon of <br />facilities could be considered in improving the flood control <br />situation along the gulch. As mentioned above, the cost <br />charts reflect the construction cost for the facility, the <br />right-oI-way cost, and a contingency cost over the reach where <br />these costs are applicable. <br />Three possible alternatives of combinations of drainag~ facili- <br />ties and flood control measures h'ere proposed for posslble <br />application in ir.lproving Slaughterhousc Gu~ch. \\ith the cost <br />and benefit charts available, any alternatIve can be evaluated <br />from a benefit-cost standpoint. Tile following alternative pcasurus <br />have be",n suggested by the planning agency and the enginoer <br />for fur~her review. They arc ilS follows: <br />Altorn'lte 1 - Ir::proveJ. conduit and ch~nnel, utilization of <br />CXlst~~g storm ~ewers and flood plain ~one. <br />Altcf\Mtu 2 - lIT.proved ",ondu.;t a,nJ channel, ponding and <br />VUlUClt,. control stnlctures, improved chonncl with <br />right-of-way ;1cquisitioll, itoIHO\,(,d storm se\,'crs. <br /> <br />Alternate 3 - Ir.:provcd conduit and channel, ponding.ill;d <br />velOCIty structllres, improved channel and land acqu~S.l- <br />tion, improvement of existing detention reservoir and street <br />ane storm sewer improvements. <br /> <br />The- follo,.,-ing sections p,ivc it F.Jore dct,liled description of the <br />proposed impl'ovemellts in tf.c .;tudy area. <br /> <br />A. Ajtf'rnRte 1 <br />Alternative I proposes the install,\tion of a conduit from <br />the South PI,ltte River to Prince Street. From Prince to <br />Rio Grande StrN't an inprovec! ;:hal1Pel would be incorporated <br />into the l.al-;~'vie"" Knolls !JUD. The remai.ning part of tile <br />swJy are" ",'ould be :oOlcd fleod pl::in, i~cludi;1g the n~aln. <br />stream and the ~oul'h Triblltary. rip,ur" (-, shows a S(Ch"IIl'-lth; <br />]'lrO\lt of this ,dterOlate. <br /> <br />~ 17. <br /> <br />H. <br />.c <br />