My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD03506
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
FLOOD03506
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:27:29 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 11:49:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Jefferson
Community
Lakewood
Stream Name
South Lakewood Gulch
Basin
South Platte
Title
Major Drainageway Planning
Date
8/1/1978
Prepared For
Lakewood
Prepared By
UDFCD
Contract/PO #
&&
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.
/
47
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />SECTION V <br />BASIS OF DESIGN <br /> <br />Throughout the preparation of the Phase A report and Addendum, the Urban <br />Drainage and Flood Control District, the City of lakewood, and Wright- <br />Mclaughlin Engineers met bi-weekly to review project status. Step-by-step <br />approvals were received on project direction, policy decisions and work <br />efforts. The legal opinion (Appendix B) of the published Phase A report <br />by Shoemaker and Wham dated September 26, 1977 has also been evaluated. <br />The Addendum alternate reflects input from this legal opinion. <br /> <br />The South lakewood Gulch Phase A report "Development of Alternative Plans" <br /> <br /> <br />was prepared by Wright-Mclaughlin Engineers in July, 1977. The purpose of <br /> <br /> <br />the Phase A report was to address the hydrology of the basin, overview the <br /> <br /> <br />anticipated drainage and flood control problems and to develop several <br /> <br />alternatives for solution measures. <br /> <br />In addition, specific objectives were considered. local officials and others <br />interested in the management of South lakewood Gulch were interviewed. The <br />following is a list of points to which particular attention was given <br />during preparation of the Phase A report. <br />. Floodplains should be delineated and regulated. <br />. Wadsworth Boulevard should be available for emergency vehicle use <br />during the 1 percent flood. <br />. Provision should be made for passive recreation and linear paths <br />for equestrian and pedestrian use. <br />. Opportunities for multi-use parks should be provided. <br />. Upstream detention and retention storage should be liberally <br />uti I i zed. <br />. The plan of development should allow for water quality enhance- <br />ment, including land application of storm runoff on grassed areas. <br />. An optimized plan of flood hazard reduction based on health, <br />safety, and welfare of the basin residents should be achieved. <br />. The natural historic character of the upper part of the basin <br />should be considered as each alternative is developed. <br /> <br />The Recommended Alternative presented in the Addendum report (Appendix <br />A-I) has been updated for Phase B preliminary planning to include the City's <br />recent proposal for a park between Kipling and Garrison. A total water <br />detention facility capable of detaining the total volume from a 100-year <br />storm has been planned at Garrison which further reduces the future peak <br />flow value at the confluence from 850 (as reported in the Phase A report) <br />to 770 cfs. <br /> <br />The decision reached under the Phase A portion of the study have been re- <br />examined with a more detailed hydrological and hydraulic study due to this <br />flow reduction. Descriptions of the recommended alternative and preliminary <br />planning is given on "Commentaries" which precede each of the drawings <br />included in this report. <br /> <br />The 100-year planning criteria has been selected throughout the entire pro- <br /> <br /> <br />ject. The recommended plan minimizes hazard to life and property within <br /> <br /> <br />the area, makes wise use of floodplain lands, lowers the IOO-year peak <br /> <br /> <br />flow by use of detention and retention ponding, has multipurpose open space, <br /> <br />channelizes the lOa-year flow in the wide floodplain areas, enhances the <br /> <br /> <br />water quality of the gulch, and is cost-effective. <br /> <br />An addendum to the Phase A report issued in November, 1977, was directed to <br /> <br /> <br />the Recommended Alternative which combined maximum retention storage at the <br /> <br /> <br />existing Addenbrooke Pond, and maximum detention at Rockmont Ponds and at <br /> <br /> <br />1st Avenue and Balsam. This storage resulted in a flow reduction at the <br /> <br /> <br />confluence from 1,260 cfs under existing channel conditions to 850 cfs <br /> <br /> <br />under improved channel and storage conditions. <br /> <br />The operations and maintenance costs of the proposed drainage and flood <br /> <br /> <br />control system and the unit prices used in the cost development are presented <br /> <br />in Tables V-I and V-2, respectively. <br /> <br />V-I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.