Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />~'F!'\ ,'It:V\:~ :'l~T~ <br />Kar 1 Mohr. FFl'IA <br />January 12, 1984 <br />Page Two <br /> <br /> <br />and zones, They also need to address the closure issue and comment <br />whether sandbagging is necessary at any location. <br /> <br />c. Madison, SD - You reported that Bill Judkins has not yet looked into <br />obtaining backup computations for the Park Creek floodway. <br /> <br />d. Mesa, AZ - Regarding the LOMR and LOMA, we discussed flooding shown <br />on the effective FIRM for, both sides of the Consolidated Canal. <br />We relayed the results of our discussions with the Salt River Project <br />and the Maricopa County Flood Control Department regarding the canal's <br />effect on flooding. They told us that the canal is not intended <br />to be a fl(~-control structure, and it is questionable whether it <br />would or ~luld be emptied quickly enough to intercept a significant <br />amount of lllluvial fan flow. We discussed the Corps original approach <br />and possible alternatives to analyze the flooding, and concluded <br />that the Ce,rps approach was reasonable and based on the best available <br />data. We do not have sufficient information for a complete reanalysis. <br />Because the Corps assumed the canal to be full and did not credit <br />its levees with providing protection against fan flooding, determinations <br />regarding i:ndividual structures or properties should be based on <br />structure OJ: ground elevation data rather than on any analysis of <br />the levees' structural stability. When responding to requests for <br />conditional determinations, we should consider proposed elevation <br />above map Bl~ rather than improvements to the canal or levees. <br /> <br />e. Woodland/COIditz and Clark Counties, WA - We informed you that levees <br />exist along Lewis River. You instructed us to request written certifi- <br />cation from the Corps for IOO-year flood protection, and operation <br />and maintenance information from the agency responsible. During <br />our meeting, Chuck Steele of Region 10 called. You told him that <br />the data req'Jest letters would be signed early next week, and that <br />LOMRs for th.! 3 cOl!llllunities would be prepared within 4 weeks after <br />receipt of the needed information. <br /> <br />vf'.~~co -~YOU gave us a memo from Region 8 requesting that an Existing <br />Data tudy be prepared for this cOl!llllunity. You asked us to determine <br />whether there is sufficient information available to prepare the <br />study, then to draft a memo from you to Doug Gore indicating what <br />action will be taken. <br /> <br />...........- <br />