FLOOD10385 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2480 W. 26th Avenue. Suite 200-8 Denver. Colorado 80211-5580 (303) 455-1000 FAX (303) 480-6790 Accessible Via RID Route 28 1955 Governments Serving Local Governments and the Region Since of Council I :)~O(i Denver Regiona I L. Scott Tucker May 13, 1993 Page 2 The recommended plan refers to the enlargement of channels for many reaches without defining what type of channel development is proposed. We would suggest that the recommended plan be more detailed in specifying preferred construction components or types. This would permit those affected by the improvements to consider the suitability of the proposed construction materials. _ c:.NtilNt.t:.&. DENVER RECEIVED 1AY 1 7 19~ .. 1993 13, May I I I Development Services Director at please contact Lan)' Mugler, If you have any questions, DRCOG. Sincerely I JiL:lC L Scott Tucker, Executive Director Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2480 West 26th Avenue, Suite 156B Denver, Colorado 80211 I I David A. Pampu Deputy Executive Director of the Ci Ian for Urban Drainaae and Tucker: Environmental Assessment of master dralnaae Lakewood. DRCOG File No. 46-93 Bill Coppock. Councilman, City of Lakewood, DRCOG Board Representative Jeanie Rossillon, Jefferson County . Anne Heine, City of Lakewood Scott Lewis, City of Golden Mark Glidden, Boyle Engineering Corporation Ijh cc: The Upper Lena Gulch Phase A Report prepared for the Urban Drainage and Rood Control District was reviewed for consistency with the regional Clean Water Plan. Generally, the recommended alternative plan shown in the report appears reasonable from a water quality perspective. We would suggest Including the erosion protection alternative for the Lena Gulch reaches L-13, L-12 and AG. The longer term environmental benefits from the erosion protection should outweigh the short term construction cost Although an enlarged detention pond In Lena Gulch reach L-3 would not meet the total inflow requirements, It could provide water quality benefits. The only criteria used to reject this alternative was the inflow hydrograph and the water quality component should be considered In the cost-benefit analysis before the alternative is rejected. Dennis S. Reynolds Robert Sakaguchi Ronald K, Slewart Welbngton E. Webb Dear Mr. Re: The Denver Regional Council of Governments reviews and comments on a wide variety of proposals which affect the growth and development of the region. The process of project review is utilized to assist In the implementation of adopted regional plans and policies and to coordinate intergovernmental planning, programming and development. Implementation is achieved through action by local, state, and federal governments on proposals which are consistent with adopted plans and policies. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and the City of Lakewood are encouraged to consider the following comments. A. Edwin Feist Jeannie Jolly Betty J. Miller D.L "Don" Parsons Executive Committee Roland E. Cole. Chainnan T.J. "Ted" Hackworth. Vice Chainnan Margaret W. Carpenter Guillenno A, DeHerrera Chainnan Board Officers D.L. "Don" Parsons, Chainnan Dennis S. Reynolds, Vice Chainnan Roland E. Cole, Secretary-Treasurer T.J. "Ted" Hackworth, Immediate Pas Robert D. Farley. Executive Director I I I I I I I I I I I I