My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02336
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02336
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:15:22 AM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:49:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
Designation Number
57
County
Adams
Arapahoe
Douglas
Community
Denver Metro Region
Stream Name
Lena Gulch
Basin
South Platte
Title
Master Drainage Plan - Revision to Lena Gulch on sheet 8 of Volume II
Date
3/1/1976
Designation Date
3/1/1976
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
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
<br />V I 1-14 <br /> <br />The relatively natural condition of Apex Gulch above Heritage Square <br />along the slopes of Lookout Mountain is a valuable asset to Lena Gulch <br />which should be preserved. Natural mountainous dralnageways within a <br />few minutes drive of urbanization will undoubtedly prove an invaluable <br />natural resource in future generations. Because this area is presently <br />in private ownership with limited access and because 110 public land <br />acquisition program was Included in any of the three alternatives, no <br />tangible benefits were calculated for Apex Gulch. <br /> <br />No dollar value was included for the sense of security and social order <br />enjoyed by the residents along Lena Gulch as a result of the recommended <br />improvements. Any evaluations in this area under the present scope of <br />work would have been quite arbitrary and hIghly speculative. A proper <br />determination of these benefits WOuld requ'ire an extensive study con- <br />ducted by a highly qualified team of sociologists, urban planners, and <br />engineers. The importance if these intan9ibles, however, should not be <br />ignored. Rather, they should be ~arefully weighed as a most important <br />element in the land use decision-~aking pn)cess. The recognition of the <br />existence of these intangible ben~fits separate from the benefit/cost <br />analysis is an essential step towilrd ",chieving proper flood plain '.Isage. <br /> <br />FLOOD DAMAGES OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />Each of the various alternatives will sti II incur an expected damage. <br />Examples of these damages would include isolated bank erosion spots <br />in the grass-lined channel or structural damage during the IOO-year <br />Irequency event with the improved flood plain alternate. The level <br />of damages incurred will also be dependent on the design frequency <br />of the alternate. For example, if the grclss-1 ined channel is deslqned <br />with capacity to handle the 25-year frequency flood, then damages will <br />occur during the 100-year frequency event ,"hich would overflow the <br />ban ks. <br /> <br />Table VI 1-6 tabulates the expected annual damages to be incurred with <br />each alternate, for the 10, 25, and iOO-year design frequency for <br />the reaches of Lena Gulch in each of the various location entities. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.