FLOOD02150 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 ~ , \ Concerning the pines Development, we understand that a small portion was originally subject to sheetflooding; however, the problem was corrected with a flood control berm, which contains the Fish Creek overflow channel. On our site review, we were not able to precisely determine the location of the berm. We found a berm around the parking area which appeared more for shielding the parking from the road as opposed to flood control. Please provide the engineering calculations that show how the City arrived at the determination that the berm would adequately contain the Fish Creek flow. , [ The Burgess Creek area was reviewed and we particularly examined the culverts at the Delaney Development. One culvert was completely plugged, the other was partially blocked and clearly could not pass the flows the culverts were designed to carry. We understand that Mr. Delaney has offered to build head walls and to clean out the existing culverts. Please detail the City's policy on maintenance of culverts. We were asked what assumptions were made in the flood insurance study on culvert capacity. The hydraulic analyses reflect unobstructed flow, The flood elevations shown on the profiles are considered valid only if bridges and culverts remain unobstructed by flood-borne debris, ice, or sediment. Since the original 1976 Corps of Engineers Flood Study that was done, there has been significant channel improvements and changes, diversion structures, and diversion ponds, which have been approved by the City. However, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) do not reflect these changes. We request that you determine all changes that have occurred to the stream channels since the Flood Insurance Study was completed and the mapping provided, and to submit map amendments and map revision requests to this office. We will review the information and send it to our National Office who will process amendments to your maps to reflect current improvements which have been made. Also the City needs to comply with the ordinance requirements at Section 17.47.060 B8, concerning notification to Routt County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse and submit such evidence of notification to FEMA. The Town has not maintained records on floodplain ordinance compliance particularly relative to records on the actual elevation on the lowest floor, floodproofing for nonresidential structures and other records relative to the requirements of the ordinance as they apply to permits that are granted for floodplain development. The Federal regulations at Part 60.3(e)(2) require that the City maintain records on elevations of structures and on floodproofing