FLOOD04661 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Mohr was also asked whether or not the University of Colorado would be considered a state agency for purposes of operating and maintaining the levee once it has been approved by FEMA. Mr. Mohr said that since the University maintains its own campus facilities including utilities, roads, etc. that it would be considered eligible for the operation and maintenance of the levee. CONCLUSIONS Following the review and re-analysis of the South Boulder Creek loo-year floodplain as it affects the Flatiron Property we offer the following conclusions. 1. The FlS floodplain for South Boulder Creek in the vicinity of the Flatiron Property is incorrect. The 19860&0 floodplain analysis assumed that the berm surrounding the Property was either natural ground or a FEMA approved flood protection levee neither of which is correct thus causing much of the Property to be removed from the lOO-year floodplain in error. 2. The split flows from South Boulder Creek on the eastern and northern edges of the Property in the 0&0 model are incorrect. In fact, approximately an additional 1,000 cfs of flood waters spill to the north and west of the Property and does not rejoin the South Boulder Creek floodplain north of US Highway 36 as reported in the 0&0 study. 3. With a certified flood levee in place around the Flatiron Property, approximately 2,620 cfs of flood waters spill on to properties north of US 36. With no levee in place, approximately 3,680 cfs of flood waters could spill onto properties north of US 36. The majority of these flows cannot immediately return to the South Boulder Creek floodplain due to ground elevations, development impacts including the RTD Park-n-Ride and the construction of a sound barrier berm along the western edge of Foothills Parkway which may not allow the water to -23-