Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1-7 <br /> <br />Briefly, the entities commented and chose the following: <br /> <br />1. City of Wheat Ridge. The City Council adopted the estimated optimum <br />combination alternate for use in Phase B of this study. <br /> <br />2. City of Lakewood, The City recommended that for the reach of Lena <br />Gulch above Maple Grove Reservoi r, the estimated optimum combination <br />alternative be util ized; and for the reach below Maple Grove, a <br />grass-l ined channel be uti 1 izecl. <br /> <br />3. Jefferson County. The Board of County Commissioners adopted the <br />estimated optimum combinatIon a-ternate for use in Phase 8 of this <br />study. Also, detention ponds in the vicinity of Interstate 70 <br />should be studied. <br /> <br />4. City of Golden. The City recommended that for the reach of Lena <br />Gulch from U.S. Highway No.6 to Zeta Street, the improved flood <br />plain alternate be util ized, and the sedimentation basin located <br />upstream of Zeta Street be subject to County Con:rol. <br /> <br />The master plan chosen by the local entities was then developed. This <br />included final ization of the hydroiogical ane hydraul ical analysis of <br />Lena Gulch for the lOa-year storm. This inforMation is presented on <br />appropriate mapping in Volume II of this Report. Table 1-5 presents <br />the master plan cost estimate. <br /> <br />An evaluation of Maple Grove Reservoir was undertaken. This study <br />indicated that Maple Grove Reservoir plays a major role in the hydrological <br />runoff process of Lena Gulch beside. being a key component of the Con- <br />solidated Mutual Water Company (Consolidated) for water supply. This <br />study found that Maple Grove Reservoir (MGR) diminishes peak runoff floVI5 <br />downstream during storms of laO-year or less f-equency. Additionally, <br />analysis showed that the flood stol-age capacity and spillway flow <br />characteristics are fairly optimal from a channel viewpoint. That is, <br />it was calculated that embankment enlargement and alternation of spill- <br />way characteristics to further reduced flood flow were not economically <br />sound. <br /> <br />The State Engineer of Colorado detel-min'2d that MGR is a model-ate hazard <br />dam, and has required that MGR's spillway discharge capacity be enlarged. <br />Various entities, the Urban Drainage and Flood Cvntrol District and <br />Cans01 idated requested that an analysis be m':-Ide to identify facts regard- <br />ing spi Ilway improvement, flood control benefi ts, "later supply benefits, <br />and alternate water supply and flood coctrol options. <br /> <br />It has been estimated that it would cost $600,000 to improve Maple Grove <br />Reservoir's inadequate spillway, The analysis of Maple Grove Reservoir <br />as a flood control structure and as a water "upply faci I i ty has shown that <br />the final distribution of spillway improvement costs is a negotiable matter <br />between Canso 1 idated and the UD&FCO. <br />