My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-07-28_REVISION - M1981302
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981302
>
1997-07-28_REVISION - M1981302
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2022 4:31:18 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:43:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981302
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/28/1997
From
URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
To
UNIVERSITY OF COLO AT BOULDER
Type & Sequence
TR6
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.
/
2
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
Our consultant haq concluded that the levee as it exists today reduces the amount <br /> of overflow into what has come to be called the West Valley Overflow. Also, <br /> because the area behind the levee has now becn lowered through mining <br /> activities, loss of the levee without a replacement strategy would definitely <br /> increase the hazard to downstream developed areas. <br /> 3. You asked "Whether(we) support FEMA recognition of the dike for FEMA <br /> mapping purposes." <br /> There are two related issues involved in your question which I would like to <br /> expand upon. As far as FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps are concerned, their <br /> polity (as I understand it) is that a levee must go through their 5-step <br /> certification process before they will recognize it on their maps. However, in this <br /> case,FEMA has already recognized the levee on their maps even though they <br /> have not yet certified it according to their 5-step process. Therefore, I cannot, <br /> and will not, guece at how FEMA might ragnlve thin dilemma should Flatirons be <br /> prevented from obtaining certification of the levee. It is my understanding that <br /> the City of Boulder requested that FEMA amend their maps to show the pre- <br /> levee floodplain, but that ktMA declined to do so becausc dicy rccogniacd that <br /> dic topography bchiad the love*had changed. Seemingly the two options <br /> remaining to FEMA if the levee is not certified are to either recognize the levee <br /> anyway and keep the current maps, or redefine the floodpWn based on the <br /> current topography, which would impact a large number of stttrctures in the West <br /> ! Valley Overflow area as noted above. <br /> My sct;uuLL puuil in responsc to your question is that we would support FFMA <br /> lcvcc certification regardless of the impact on the maps because it adds a level of <br /> assurance of the present and future integrity of the structure. <br /> As you know, I will be out of town on the date of the hearing. However if you or anyone <br /> else reading this letter has any questions regarding any of the above, please feel free to <br /> contact me at any time. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Bill DeGroot� <br /> Clvof FloodpLlin Management Prnpram <br /> WGD/gb <br /> rr.• Ccntt Tucker <br /> Alan Taylor, City of Boulder <br /> Curt Parker, Boulder County <br /> T . - y f -. c, C'Womdo Water Conservatinn Board <br /> John Lion, FEMA <br /> 1aooQbiw�pton <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.