My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD06691
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
FLOOD06691
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:15:23 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:27:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
Designation Number
44
County
Adams
Arapahoe
Douglas
Community
Denver Metro Region
Stream Name
Lena Gulch
Basin
South Platte
Title
Master Drainage Plan - Lena Gulch Volume I
Date
6/1/1975
Designation Date
7/1/1975
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 1-8 <br /> <br />1. From a legal standpoint, the liabi lity of Wheat Ridge is unreason- <br />ably high, as any malfunction which could cause a disaster is more <br />likely with a conduit, ~nd the blame would rest with Wheat Ridge. <br /> <br />2. The actual sizing of the conduit would have to be much larger to <br />realistically remove such a liability. That is, the conduit and <br />overland flow system would have to be capable of carrying the <br />flood from the maximum event without increasing flood damages <br />under existing conditions. <br /> <br />3. The maintenance aspects would be excessively high, as both the <br />conduit and surface collection channels \,ou]d have to be maintained. <br /> <br />4. The actual right of way requi rements would not be decreased sig.. <br />nificantly in comparison to other structura'l alternatives, as con- <br />struction easements would have to bEl quite wide and be maintained <br />afterward for repair purposes. <br /> <br />The trade-off between land cost in the reductions In flood plain width <br />by the hard-lined channel Is not significant enough to make this alter- <br />native more beneficial except for a few loc,ltlons where the channel Is <br />overly constricted. Also, the intangible benefits of hard-lined channel <br />are very low, with many people considering !;uch a channel to be detri- <br />mental to an area. <br /> <br />A,lso, the situation at the Red Barn was specifically investigated to <br />evaluate whether it was economically better to leave the existing bui Ideo <br />I ng and deve I op a flow by-pass scheme or to remove the bu i 1 ding and <br />construct an open channel. A channel and conduit routed around the Red <br />Barn to the north has been preliminarily estimated to cost $255,000 for <br />construction. Tunnelling under the building would cost about $262,000 <br />for construction not including insurance cc~ts and damages to sti 11 be <br />expected. The cost of a grass-lined channel through this area after <br />building removal would be about $34,000, while a concrete-lined channel <br />would cost about $87,000. This would indicate that the difference, <br />$168,000, could be used as a fiscal gage for Wheat Ridge policy decision <br />as to whether or not to purchase the building. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.