Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br />Karl Mohr, FEMA <br />May 24, 1984 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />d. Grand Forks, NO - We discussed the Part 67 appeal received from the <br />community. You questioned the SC's analysis for English Coulee <br />upstream of Route 29 near the levee. We are to review the SC work, <br />and get back to you. <br /> <br />e. Ouray and Ywoa Counties, CO - We discussed the base map scales for <br />the two stud:les. For Ouray County, you agreed that a 1".1000' scale <br />should be uSl!d for detailed study areas, except in the vicinity of <br />the Cities oJ: Ouray and Ridgliay, which should be at l".SOO' scale. A <br />total of 8 pimels will be needed. Ouray City and County should have <br />a combined continuous map (as was done in Maricopa County, AZ). por <br />Yuma County, you agreed to a 1".1000' scale for detailed study areas, <br />with 8 panel a required. <br /> <br />f. Boulder, CO .. We discussed the May 1, 1984, report submitted by Dave <br />Love in sup~'rt of the request by Mr. Lander for conditional approval <br />of the berm upstream of the Canyon Center Project. The report contains <br />hydraulic an<llyses of Boulder Creek (based on split flow conditions <br />for the lOa-year flood), two soils reports, a draft maintenance <br />agreement, ae,-built plans, and profiles of the new lOa-year flood and <br />existing and proposed berm crests. Based on our discussion, we decided <br />that the splIt flow analysis was not appropriate for the section of <br />the creek in question, and identified additional points that must be <br />addressed by Mr. Lander, including: the wording of the maintenance <br />agreement, the floodwall at the upstream end of the berm, and berm <br />penetrations. You informed us that Mr. Lander had told you that he <br />would not pursue certification of the berm under the "Exceptions to <br />Levee Freeboa,rd Requirements" policy, but rather he proposes to improve <br />the existing berm so that it will provide the required 3-feet of free- <br />board. You told us that you will set up a conference call on Tuesday, <br />May 29, to discuss our findings with Mr. Lander. We are then to pre- <br />pare a letter requesting the information we need. <br /> <br />g. Fullerton, CA - You informed us that you had received another memo <br />from the Regional Office concerning their earlier request (or revisions <br />to the effective FIRM. You told us to be prepared to discuss the <br />original request with you on May 31. <br /> <br />h. Corona, CA - We informed you that we had received as-built plans for <br />channel improvements constructed by the Riverside County Flood Control <br />and Water Conservation District (RCFCD). These plans carry a signature <br />and number, but not a P.E;seal. We were informed by the RCPCD that <br />the State doe9 not require 'them to seal their plans. You directed us <br />to accept the plans without the seal. We also told you that we had <br />received a maintenance agreement stating that the RCFCD will maintain <br />