Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1-2 <br /> <br />The scope of work included the following: <br />1. Coordination with and collection of data from the sponsoring agencies <br />and other private or governmental groups that had pertinent knowledge <br />or interest in the area. <br />2. Conduct field studies and surveys to accurately determine basin <br />boundaries and surface drainage conditions currently existing within <br />the basin. <br />3. Perform detailed hydrological and hydraulic studies of the basin and <br />sub-basins, such that storm runoff hydrographs (2, 10 and 100 year) <br />could be defined at critical points within the basin(s). Define the <br />existing condition major drainageway flood plain and future develop- <br />ment condition major drainageway flood plain. <br />4. A series of improvement alternatives was developed on a reach-by-reach <br />basis which would alleviate the flood hazard problem. A benchmark <br />condition for evaluation of the various alternatives was the "do-nothing" <br />approach with the attendant damages. The "do-nothing" alternative is <br />defined as the maintaining of existing drainage conditions, which in <br />turn implies flood plain zoning. Both structural and non-structural <br />solutions were considered in developing the alternatives for the <br />various reaches. A rating or evaluation criteria for the various <br />alternatives, based upon a benefit-cost analysis, legal opinions <br />plus environmental impact and land use considerations were established <br />and are presented herein. <br />5. The legal aspects of the alternatives and other associated problems <br />of a legal nature were reviewed and opinions received from Tom Grimshaw <br />of Calkins, Kramer, Grimshaw and Harring. These opinions and comments <br />are on file with the U.D. & F.C.D. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br />