My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1983/05/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
Agenda Packets - 1983/05/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2025 3:28:33 PM
Creation date
3/12/2025 3:28:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/23/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
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
3-3 <br />6. The usual means to protect local residents is to install a fence <br />around the facility. These fences are often unsightly and prone <br />to vandalism and many times are as much of a hazard to local children <br />as the detention basin. <br />7. Safety is a problem where the banks are steep and the temporary pond <br />is designed to detain water to great depths. <br />The flood control effectiveness of detention basins is questionable. The <br />effects of detention may be identifiable only immediately downstream of a basin. <br />In some cases the effect is increased flooding from the more frequent storms. <br />1. The result in many cases is to change the runoff pattern from several <br />separate pathways of runoff as sheet flow and small channels to one <br />distinct pathway. While the peak runoff from the watershed may not <br />have increased, it may now be concentrated in only one channel, a <br />i <br />channel which heretofore was carrying a much lesser rate of flow. <br />2. By installing several detention basins in a single watershed, the <br />timing of flood discharges will be changed. This change in timing can <br />result in combining flows downstream from different subwatersheds that <br />bypassed each other under uncontrolled or natural conditions. The com- <br />bined flow can create higher peak flows downstream than would have <br />occurred without the basins. <br />3. Many of the detention basins installed in the Atlanta area are no <br />larger than small swimming pools because small on -site basins have <br />been encouraged. Their effectiveness on downstream flooding is questionable. <br />4. Because detention basins concentrate runoff into a single flow path and <br />the runoff downstream extends over a longer period of time, two major <br />;' erosion problems result. The increased flow in a single channel causes <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.