Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> 1 <br /> FEMA's reported regulatory 100-year flood discharge for South Boulder Creek at U.S. <br /> Highway 36 is noted to be 6,160 cfs as reported in the Flood Insurance Rate Study for <br /> Boulder County (FIS) published in June, 1995. As previously noted, the FEMA FIS was <br /> ' based upon he G&O 1986 floodplain report. No new studies were performed by FEMA <br /> in order to verify the data supplied in the G&O Report. It was at the request of Boulder <br /> ' County and the City of Boulder that the G&O report was published as the regulatory <br /> ' floodplain study for this stream. <br /> ' The flood hydrology of South Boulder Creek utilized in the Love & Associates review <br /> and analyses was obtained from the regulatory model (G&O). According to the G&O <br /> ' FHAD, the hydrology of South Boulder Creek was developed by the U.S. Army Corps <br /> of Engineers (USACE). <br /> ' REVIEW OF THE GREENHORNE & O'MARA HYDRAULIC MODELS <br /> A hard copy of the G&O regulatory HEC-2 hydraulic models of South Boulder Creek in <br /> ' the study area was obtained from Boulder County and verified to be the same model used <br /> in the FEMA FIS. The G&O HEC-2 models, within the study reach, consists of a main <br /> ' channel model and a split flow model. In order to insure that the same model as used in <br /> the regulatory study is the model provided to us in the G&O study, these models were re- <br /> created and run on the PC version of HEC-2. The models and the floodplain delineation <br /> shown within the FHAD were reviewed for conformance with the re-created models. <br /> The Love & Associates resulting re-creation did in fact match the G&O and regulatory <br /> HEC-2 models as published. A copy of this re-created HEC-2 regulatory model is <br /> provided in the Technical Appendix of this report. <br /> During the review process, inconsistencies and errors were discovered in the G&O <br /> (regulatory) models. Flow separations modeled by G&O were found to be hydraulically <br /> connected within portions of the study area. Additional topographic mapping was <br /> ' -11- <br />