1997-06-13_REPORT - M1981302 ‎(16)‎

• Permit No: M1981302
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 6/13/1997
• Doc Name: EXHIBIT A 12
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

1
' Mr. Mohr was also asked whether or not the University of Colorado would be considered
a state agency for purposes of operating and maintaining the levee once it has been
approved by FEMA. Mr. Mohr said that since the University maintains its own campus
facilities including utilities, roads, etc. that it would be considered eligible for the
' operation and maintenance of the levee.
' CONCLUSIONS
Following the review and re-analysis of the South Boulder Creek 100-year floodplain as
' it affects the Flatiron Property we offer the following conclusions.
1. The FIS floodplain for South Boulder Creek in the vicinity of the Flatiron
Property is incorrect. The 1986 G&O floodplain analysis assumed that the berm
' surrounding the Property was either natural ground or a FEMA approved flood
protection levee neither of which is correct thus causing much of the Property to
be removed from the 100-year floodplain in error.
2. The split flows from South Boulder Creek on the eastern and northern edges of
the Property in the G&O model are incorrect. In fact, approximately an
' additional 1,000 cfs of flood waters spill to the north and west of the Property and
does not rejoin the South Boulder Creek floodplain north of US Highway 36 as
' reported in the G&O study.
3. With a certified flood levee in place around the Flatiron Property, approximately
2,620 cfs of flood waters spill on to properties north of US 36. With no levee in
' place, approximately 3,680 cfs of flood waters could spill onto properties north of
US 36. The majority of these flows cannot immediately return to the South
Boulder Creek floodplain due to ground elevations, development impacts
including the RTD Park-n-Ride and the construction of a sound barrier berm
' along the western edge of Foothills Parkway which may not allow the water to
-23-