Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Comparing the land use in Upper Lena Gulch under existing and future development conditions, it is evident that <br />the basin is already highly developed and only relatively small areas of additional development are expected to <br />occur. Much of the existing undeveloped areas are designated open-space, such as the areas in and around Apex <br />Gulch, Green Mountain, and South Table Mountain, and are not expected to be developed in the future. As such, <br />the peak runoff occurring in the basin today is expected to increase only slightly under future development <br />conditions. Table 5 shows a comparison of the 100-year peak flows at the selected design points under existing and <br />future basin development, and as estimated for future basin development in the 1975 Master Plan. <br /> <br />The hydrologic model results for the 100-year recurrence interval storm from this study and the 1975 Master Plan <br />study were compared. The 100-year peak flows computed in this study using the calibrated model agree very <br />closely with those from the 1975 Master Plan. The calibrated hydrologic model was developed for the ultimate <br />future basin conditions estimated in the 1975 Master Plan. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Land use and zoning maps provided by Jefferson County and the Cities of Golden and Lakewood were used to <br />identify projected ultimate future land use in the basin. Peak discharges for each of the recurrence intervals were <br />computed by the model for future basin development conditions. Table 4 contains the peak discharges for selected <br />design points for each of the recurrence intervals under future basin development. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />TABLE 5 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />(ers) <br /> <br />100- YEAR PEAK DISCHARGES <br /> <br />Future <br />Basin <br />Conditions <br /> <br />Existing <br />Basin <br />Conditions <br /> <br />1975 Master <br />Plan Future <br />Conditions <br /> <br />Location <br /> <br />TABLE 4 <br /> <br />Future Basin Conditions <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1,770 <br /> <br />1,770 <br /> <br />,810 <br /> <br />Lena Gulch at Hogback <br /> <br />Peak Flow Summary At Design Points (ers) <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Lena Gulch at 6th Avenue <br /> <br />100-yr <br /> <br />50-yr <br /> <br />10-yr <br /> <br />br <br /> <br />2:yr <br /> <br />Location <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />2,270 <br /> <br />2,170 <br /> <br />2,220 <br /> <br />1,770 <br /> <br />1,320 <br /> <br />510 <br /> <br />370 <br /> <br />260 <br /> <br />Lena Gulch at Hogback <br /> <br />3,810 <br /> <br />3,550 <br /> <br />3,750 <br /> <br />Lena Gulch at 1-70 <br /> <br />3,980 <br /> <br />3.690 <br /> <br />3.830 <br /> <br />Inflow to Maple Grove Res <br /> <br />2,270 <br /> <br />1. 740 <br /> <br />800 <br /> <br />620 <br /> <br />420 <br /> <br />Lena Gulch at 6th Avenue <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />3.810 <br /> <br />3.980 <br /> <br />3,920 <br /> <br />3.080 <br /> <br />1,440 <br /> <br />1,580 <br /> <br />1.120 <br /> <br />1,220 <br /> <br />730 <br /> <br />790 <br /> <br />Lena Gulch at 1-70 <br /> <br />to Maple Grove Res <br /> <br />Inflow <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In addition, analyses were performed to estimate the 500-year frequency peak discharge for inclusion in the Flood <br />Hazard Area Delineation (FHAD) report for Upper Lena Gulch produced concurrently with this Master Plan. <br />Additional detailed information on the hydrologic modeling input, calibration, and results for the Upper Lena Gulch <br />basin can be found in the Phase A Report. <br /> <br />Figures 5 through 8 show runoff hydrographs for each recurrence interval for selected design points under future <br />basin development. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />Hydrologic Analysis Results <br /> <br />The hydrographs generated using CUHPE/PC were combined and routed using UDSWM2/PC. The results of the <br />hydrologic analysis have been plotted on discharge profiles for each of the return periods modeled and are presented <br />in Figures 9 and 10, <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />