My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02647
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02647
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:25:03 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 11:02:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Douglas
Community
Parker
Basin
South Platte
Title
Sulphur Gulch LOMR
Date
2/17/1998
Prepared For
Douglas County
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Community File
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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 />....- <br /> <br />'''" <br /> <br />Mr. William Sweeney, Director <br />February 17, 1998 <br />Page two <br /> <br />the Merrick floodplain. We were told that the reason for the minimal change in the <br />floodplain is that most of this reach of Sulphur Gulch is in an entrenched channel where <br />higher flood depths still stay in the channel. The Baker review and their revision of the <br />Merrick submittal did not indicate any significant problems with existing or proposed <br />development in the revised floodplain. <br /> <br />Comments <br />The proposed floodplain delineation and profile would match the current FIRM at the <br />downstream limit of the LOMR. It would not match the current FIRM at the upstream <br />limit of the LOMR, despite significant efforts by the applicant and by Baker to achieve <br />such a match, For the stream reach upstream of the eastern corporate limit of the Town <br />of Parker, in unincorporated Douglas County, someone else will need to perform a new <br />hydraulic analysis, using the Baker analysis as a starting point. <br /> <br />Weare unclear as to all of the reasons for the differences between the Merrick analysis <br />and the Baker analysis. At cross..section T Gust upstream of Riva Ridge Street) and at a <br />point approximately 700 feet upstream of cross-section T, the Baker elevations are <br />significantly lower than the Merrick elevations, At cross..section U (approximately 1000 <br />feet upstream of cross-section T) and at cross..section V (approximately 2000 feet <br />upstream of cross-section T), the Baker elevations are substantially higher. While we are <br />curious about the explanations for these differences, it does not appear that the <br />differences in flood elevations result in differences in floodplain boundaries, <br /> <br />After reviewing the information we have received and after discussing it with the town's <br />drainage engineer, Ms, Georgia Simpson, we have no objections to the proposed <br />revisions to the Town of Parker FIRM, Please contact our office if you have any <br />questions or concerns about this letter. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~~h -,(J~ <br /> <br />Brian R. Hyde <br />Senior Water Resource Specialist <br />Flood Control and Floodplain Management <br />Section <br /> <br />cc: Bill DeGroot, UD & FCD <br />Georgia Simpson, RG Consulting Engineers <br />Brad Robenstein, Douglas County <br />John Liou, FEMA <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.