Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />721 Centennial Building <br />1 31 3 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone, (3031 866.3441 <br />fAX, (3031 866.4474 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLO~ <br />~ <br />'WJ <br /> <br />,...... <br /> <br />-- <br />. <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br /> <br />February 17, 1998 <br /> <br />James s. lochhetld <br />ExecutIVe Director, DNR <br /> <br />DilriesC. Lile, RE. <br />Director, ewes <br /> <br />Mr. William Sweeney, Director <br />Town of Parker Public Works Department <br />9200 Motsenbocker Road <br />Parker, CO 80138 <br /> <br />Dear Mr, Sweeney: <br /> <br />I have reviewed the LOMR materials sent to us on your behalf by RG Consulting <br />Engineers for Sulphur Gulch in the Town of Parker, The materials show floodplain <br />information for Sulphur Gulch from a point slightly downstream (west) of the Villages of <br />Parker Elementary School upstream to the eastern corporate limit of the Town of Parker. <br />Our understanding is that the primary purposes of the LOMR application are: 1) to have <br />the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels revised to reflect manmade changes <br />implemented along that reach of Sulphur Gulch and 2) to reflect more current, detailed <br />and accurate topographic information than that used for the original analysis. I would <br />like to offer some comments on the LOMR request. <br /> <br />Previous Reviews <br />In 1995 Merrick & Company submitted a request for a Conditional Letter of Map <br />Revision (CLOMR) for this project. The CLOMR was approved by FEMA on February <br />23,1996. At the time of the CLOMR request, the CWCB provided comments regarding <br />the proposed changes to the floodplain delineation. <br /> <br />Once the proposed physical changes to the floodplain had been fully implemented, a <br />request for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) was submitted, During the technical <br />review, FEMA's consultant, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc" found it necessary to rerun the <br />Merrick hydraulic analysis. One of the reasons for rerunning the analysis was that <br />Merrick's analysis did not match the current FEMA analysis at the upstream end of the <br />LOMR. FEMA requires those submitting a LOMR request to make a diligent effort to <br />match the FEMA analysis at both the upstream and the downstream end of their LOMR, <br /> <br />Michael Baker, Jr., Inc, was also unable to match the FEMA analysis at the upstream end <br />of the LOMR. They did find that some of the Merrick flood elevations should be <br />changed, up to as much as 1.47 feet lower in some locations, and up to as much as 1.85 <br />feet higher in other locations. The land area included in the Baker floodplain, which is <br />based on the higher flood elevations, is not substantially different from the land area in <br />