My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1996-10-04_REVISION - M1981302
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981302
>
1996-10-04_REVISION - M1981302
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2022 3:57:07 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:40:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981302
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/4/1996
From
DNR
To
UNIV OF COLORADO AT BOULDER
Type & Sequence
TR5
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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).
View images
View plain text
• Construction of the Boulder Turnpike - the roadway embankment acts as a diversion <br /> dike; <br /> • Removal of gravel materials resulting in a large open pit - this activity can have a <br /> major impact on the hydrology of the stream reach; <br /> • Development of large residential and commercial areas downstream of the turnpike <br /> without consideration for the flood hazards - this activity has resulted in the increased <br /> flood loss threat to these areas ; <br /> F7oodplain Management Concerns <br /> • Delineation of the 100- year floodplains with and without an approved levee system - <br /> what is the most representative 100- year floodplain limit?; <br /> • Implementation of the provisions of an approved Reclamation Plan - what should be <br /> the new look?; <br /> • Formulation of a "Best Management Plan" for the subject stream reach - what should <br /> be the future use?; <br /> • Formulation/implementation of flood mitigation measures - should measures be <br /> implemented which will reduce floodplain risks?; and <br /> • Assignment of responsibilities for the implementation of the flood mitigation <br /> measures - who pays?. <br /> We realize that the University is not responsible for the flood hazard/risk, environmental <br /> concerns, reclamation issues, and flood mitigation measures at this time. However, the wide <br /> array of concerns does demonstrate that there are more issues than the floodplain ones. We will <br /> address only the floodplain issues. <br /> We appreciate the cooperation which the University and their engineer, Love & <br /> Associates, Inc., has extended to this office. Your presentations at our September 13, 1996 <br /> progress/briefing meeting was very informative and helpful for our technical review. I would <br /> like to provide you with a progress report on our review and list the issues we plan to address <br /> in our technical review report. The final letter report will be presented to you on or before <br /> October 16, 1996. <br /> The elements of our review procedure for the subject site are: <br /> Research of the floodplain issues; <br /> Perform a geomorphologic background check on the historical flow patterns <br /> of South Boulder Creek; <br /> Compilation of flood-related information; <br /> Evaluation of the technical information/data; <br /> Examination of the delineated flood hazard/risk; <br /> Overview of the flood mitigation measures; and <br /> Conclusions <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.