|
<br />(",
<br />
<br />
<br />Federal Emergency Management Agency
<br />Washington, D.C, 20472
<br />
<br />CERTIFIED MAIL
<br />RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
<br />
<br />IN REPLY REFER TO:
<br />Case No,: 96-08-105P
<br />
<br />The Honorable Paul E, Tauer
<br />Mayor, City of Aurora
<br />1470 South Havana Street
<br />Suite 808
<br />Aurora, Colorado 80012
<br />
<br />. Community: City of Aurora, Colorado
<br />Community No.: 080002
<br />Panels Affected: 0480 E and 0485 E
<br />Effective Date of
<br />This Revision: J U L 15 1996
<br />
<br />102-I-A-C
<br />
<br />Dear Mayor Tauer:
<br />
<br />This responds to a request for a revision to the effective Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and National Flood
<br />Insurance Program (NFIP) map for your community, Specifically, this responds to a letter dated May 17,
<br />1996, fromMr, Darrell R, Hogan, P.E" Director of Public Works, City of Aurora, regarding the effective
<br />PIS report and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Aurora, Colorado, In his letter, Mr, Hogan
<br />acknowledged and provided the City of Aurora's approval of the revisions to the effective FIRM requested
<br />by Mr. David A. Guetig, P,E" Project Manager, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc, In a letter dated January 24,
<br />1996, Mr. Guetig requested that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revise the effective
<br />FIS report and FIRM to show the effects of more detailed topographic information along Cherry Creek,
<br />including a new survey of the East Arapahoe Road bridge, Mr. Guetig also requested that FEMA correct
<br />errors in the hydraulic model used to develop the effective FIRM and revise the FIRM accordingly,
<br />
<br />Ail data required to complete our review of this request were submitted with Mr, Guetig' s January 24 letter,
<br />with Mr. Hogan's May I7 letter, and with letters dated February 8, February 20, April 2, and April 18, 1996,
<br />from Mr. Douglas J, Williams, P,E., Department Manager, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc, Because this Letter
<br />of Map Revision (LOMR) incorporates more detailed information and corrects errors, fees were not assessed
<br />for the review,
<br />
<br />We have completed our review of the submitted data and the tlood data shown on the effective FIRM, and
<br />have revised the FIRM to modif'y the elevations and floodplain and floodway boundary delineations of a flood
<br />having a I -percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) along Cherry Creek
<br />from approximately 600 feet downstream of the confluence of Piney Creek, the downstream limit of detailed
<br />study, to approximately 800 feet upstream of East Arapahoe Road. The updated topographic information
<br />shows that flow overtops East Arapahoe Road and a portion of the base flood discharge splits from the main
<br />channel of Cherry Creek and forms the Cherry Creek Right Overbank Splitflow, An area of high ground
<br />separates the split flow from the main channel from East Arapahoe Road to approximately 1,400 feet
<br />downstream of East Arapahoe Road.
<br />
<br />The base flood elevations (BFEs) increased and decreased along the affected reach of Cherry Creek, with a
<br />maximum increase of 0,7 foot occurring just upstream of East Arapahoe Road and a maximum decrease of
<br />2.4 feet occurring approximately 100 feet downstream of East Arapahoe Road, The width of the Special Flood
<br />Hazard Area (SFHA), the area inundated by the base flood, increased and decreased along the affected reach
<br />of Cherry Creek, with a maximum increase of 400 feet occurring just upstream of East Arapahoe Road and
<br />a maximum decrease of 400 feet occurring approximately 1,600 feet upstream of the confluence of Piney
<br />
|