My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD07738
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
FLOOD07738
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:12:39 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 3:10:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
Designation Number
538
County
Arapahoe
Community
Arapahoe County
Basin
South Platte
Title
Hydrology Addendum to FIS Arapahoe County and Incorporated Areas
Date
1/1/2001
Prepared For
Aarapahoe County
Prepared By
Montgomery Watson
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Arapahoe County and Incorporated Areas PIS, The county and all municipalities except <br />Columbine Valley were receptive to the Board's proposed designation action and indicated that <br />they would return an official letter requesting that the CWCB designate and approve the <br />floodplain information currently available to the communities. However, letters from the <br />Arapahoe County, Town of Columbine Valley, Town of Glendale and City of Greenwood <br />Village were not received prior to publication of this report. Columbine Valley was advised by <br />the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District not to have floodplains designated until the <br />currently submitted LOMR approvals were received from FEMA. Columbine Valley has had <br />discussions directly with the CWCB about this matter. Copies of the request letters or a <br />memorandum summarizing the communities verbal request are included in the Appendix of this <br />report. <br /> <br />All of the entities were contacted by phone to discuss the designation process, review the FIRMs <br />and to solicit comments regarding the maps and general flooding conditions in the county. No <br />contradictory evidence to the PIS was mentioned during the phone meetings except for ongoing <br />LOMRs, which are not part of this designation. Summaries of the meetings are contained in the <br />Appendix. <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.