FLOOD04409

• County: Adams
• County: Arapahoe
• County: Douglas, Jefferson
• Community: Denver Metroploitan Area
• Stream Name: South Platte River, Chatfield to Baseline Vol. 2
• Basin: South Platte
• Title: Major Drainageway Planning
• Date: 11/1/1985
• Prepared For: Denver Metropolitan Area
• Prepared By: Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
• Contract/PO #: &&
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

II-I

SEcn ON II
PLANNING PROCESS

maintain existing configuration
natural type waterway
lined channels
limited structural improvements
acquisition of floodplain land
non-structura 1
relocation of channel
other
combinations

GENERAL
As reflected in the Phase A portion of the master planning effort, the
consultant has conducted an exhaustive inventory of existing and desi red
recreation improvements throughout the 40 miles of river being studied and
has outlined a realistic, achievable improvement program for each reach of
the river which, with minor adjustments, has been enthusiastically endorsed
by each local sponsor. These sponsors include:

A second matrix was then prepared to determine which recreation form needed
further study under each preliminary recreation alternative.

Adams County
Arapahoe County
Douglas County
Jefferson County
City and County of Denver
Town of Columbine Valley
City of Bri ghton
Commerce City
City of Englewood
City of Littleton
City of Sheri dan
City of Thornton
Greenway Foundation

Using this data base, preliminary lists of alternatives and design criteria
were prepared for each reach of the ri ver. Local sponsors were agai n
invited to review this material to insure a meaningful, realistic
recreation program.

The Phase A conclusions and recommendations were carefully studied by each
local sponsor and reviewed by the public in three separate forums. Through
this continuous process of input and evaluation, the information and
options were pared down into a publicly accepted and achievable improvement
program for the South Platte River from Chatfield to Brighton.

First, a matrix comparing engineering alternatives to recreation forms was
developed to evaluate the impact of one upon the other. The recreation
fonns (parks, trail s. boati ng, fi shi ng/aquat i c, swil1ll1i ng, access poi nts,
vi ews/l andscape and wil dl ife) were compared to the foll owi ng engi neeri ng
alternatives:

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS
The alternatives were developed in response to the envi ronmental
characteristics of each individual river reach and the desires of the local
sponsors. Each reach of the South Platte River offers differing features.
The alternatives are designed to describe the general nature of the
recreation program that eventually may be implemented, but are still
flexible to allow for the inclusion of such features as locally desired
foca 1 poi nts and pocket parks. The al ternat i ves can a 1 so be combi ned to
create a special description for a unique reach of the river. The
alternatives are as follows:

The process used by the consul tant to arri ve at the a lternat i ves and
criteria presented in this volume were vitally important elements of the
work. Through the course of many months, complete previews of the
inventory data and mapping were presented to the local sponsors at regular
meetings, as well as to the public and interested groups. This continuous
process of input and review by all interested and affected parties up and
down the river helped to insure a complete data base on which later
planning decisions could be made.

Develop a Regional Park Reserve
The Regional Park Reserve alternative is utilized in locations where the
river corridor has not been channelized and the IDO-year floodplain extends