Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1-4 <br /> <br />Drainage Criteria Manual. The design rainfall values were checked against <br />recent U.S.G.S. data and City of Arvada values to insure applicability for <br />this basin. <br />The combining of the hydrographs and channel routing (Muskingum) through <br />the basins was accomplished by a computer program which produced the resultant <br />hydrographs at the various design points. Routing of the flood hydrographs <br />through Hidden Lake, Bates Lake and the various ponds was performed by a <br />reservoir routing program based upon the Modified Puls method (Ref. 9). <br />These data were then used to define the existing and future basin develop- <br />ment flood plain. <br />Concurrently with the flood plain definition, various potential improve- <br />ment alternatives were conceived to alleviate the existing flood problems <br />and hazard conditions. This work is described in detail in Chapter III of <br />this report. <br />The damage costs and the costs of the various improvements alternates <br />were then determi ned foll owi ng the general gui de 1 i nes set forth in "Benefit- <br />Cost Analysis for Urban Drainage Planning" and the assessed valuation of the <br />land and improvements as established by the Adams County and City of Arvada <br />staffs. The benefit-cost analysis procedures and results are delineated <br />within Chapter V of this report. <br />After the various alternatives and the "do-nothing" condition were <br />defined, along with the attendant benefit-cost analysis, the legal aspects <br />of the alternatives and other liability sensitive items were reviewed by <br />Tom Grimshaw and Gordon Garrett of Calkins, Kramer, Grimshaw and Harring. <br />The selection of the most viable alternative and a recommended sequence <br />of improvement were then developed based upon the results of the previous work. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />. <br />