FLOOD03286

• County: Adams
• Community: Wheat Ridge, Arvada
• Stream Name: Lower Clear Creek
• Basin: South Platte
• Title: Major Drainageway Planning
• Date: 10/1/1981
• Prepared For: Adams County
• Prepared By: UDFCD
• Contract/PO #: &&
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

c.ONTRO~
O() 0",
O~ ~
;z ,. ~.r:..,t ~
~ 1m ;
~c ~ ~fll
), ...Y3
l\9...~o l'l......
February 27, 1981

CoIhy Reynol.. ~ Subject: Lower C1 ear Creek
ChairlTllln 0
City of Den.... 0
W G Duncon ~ Dear Dave:
Chlirm.n PTo- Tem ....l
Douglas County 8 This letter will constitute your formal notice to proceed with the
Ken_" ~~;:':h ~ Phase B portion of the Lower Clear Creek Major Drainageway Planning Study.
c"" of eon; ~ Accompanying this letter is the "Selected Phase B Plan" dated February 27,
W.llyToov& c 1981 which provides the detailed description of the selected alternate.
Boul..' County. In accordance with Paragraph 6 of our Agreement, your firm has up to 120
noe,. ~ calendar days to complete the Phase B report and to submit six copies of
~ the draft Phase B report to the District. The last submittal date for
Bonn;eAII~on ~ draft Phase B report is June 25, 1981.
City 01 Ed~'N.ter :;

~~~~~~~ ; At this time I am scheduling the first progress meeting between the
Bob S"1lll' ~ District, local sponsors and your firm at 9:00 a.m. on Marth 31, 1981 at
....m.COUnly ~ the District offices. By a copy of this letter I am asking Wheat Ridge,
Ru1h A C=oI' . Arvada and Adams County to have a representative at thi s meeti ng. We look
C"" of Bou'''' m forward to seei ng what progress is beinq made by that time. Before you
Oo~~;~:, ~ resume work on this project, I suggest you reread the "Scope of Services"
V;June ~ and "Special Conditions" of our Agreement as they relate to the Phase B
City 01 Westminstef ~ work.
William H. McNichOlS .
City 01 Den_ t-.
John J, Nitt'loll ~
ArIPf,I'IQe County ~
Eugene L Otis ~
City of Englewood w
Z
Atten E. Pdon 0
Eng;n.r l
M L. ""Sam" SanclOI ~
City of Oemw ~

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION V

PHASE A ALTERNATIVES AND THE
SELECTED PHASE B PLAN

GENERAL COMMENTS

During the course of the Phase A p 1 ann i ng process, bi -week ly coordi nat i on
meetings were held at the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UD&FCD)
between representatives of the UD&FCD, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers (WME), the
Cities of Wheat Ridge and Arvada, and Adams County.

BoI;rd 01 Olrec1Ors

ExetUli\le Comminee'

Flood damage, high hazard and problem areas were identified, and alternatives
for reduction of flood hazard and hazard mitigation were developed, screened,
and analyzed. General categories of alternative solutions analyzed included
f 1 oodp 1 a in preservat i on; acqu i s it i on of floodprone propert i es; grass-l i ned
channels; rock-lined channels; structural-walled channels; and replacement/
modification of selected bridge structures.

Benefit/cost analyses were conducted for the various alternatives, and the
Phase A Master Drainage Plan Report was published in September 1980. A sum-
mary of the benefit/cost analysis calculations is presented in Table V-I.
This table shows the costs associated with the different alternatives and the
effect they have on reducing the average annual flood damages.

Detailed information regarding unit prices and methodology utilized to
develop the benefit/cost comparisons may be found in the Phase A report.

The cities of Wheat Ridge and Arvada, Adams County and the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District (UD&FCD) reviewed the recommended alternatives
presented in the Phase A Master Drainage Plan. A final decision was made by
the cities and the county and specific direction was given to the consultant
(WME), which is stated in the following letter from the UD&FCD.

L. Sco" Tucker, Executive Director

Treasurer

Mr. Dave Love
Wright-McLaughlin Engineers
2420 Alcott Street
Denver, Colorado 80211

BRU/i s

Enclosure

cc: Ron Culbertson
Bud Coleman
Glen Gidley

:JC~

Ben Urbonas, P.E.
Chief, Master
Planning Program

V-I

.-/'