HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 - Recommendation on the Boulder Creek Floodplain Mapping Study
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: March 28, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Final Recommendation on the Boulder
Creek Floodplain Mapping Study
PRESENTERS: Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Annie Noble, Greenway Coordinator
Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff is currently updating the Boulder Creek floodplain mapping study. The Boulder
Creek study extends from approximately three-quarters of a mile east of 61St Street
upstream to the mouth of Boulder Canyon west of Boulder's city limits. The primary
goal of the floodplain restudy is to accurately define the existing flood conditions for
Boulder Creek. The computer and topographic models of the existing regulatory studies
are over 20 years old and reflect modeling techniques and field conditions that are no
longer accurate. The proposed study uses the current industry standard HEC-RAS
(Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis System) computer model produced by the
Army Corps of Engineers and more accurate and updated field topography. The new and
more accurate modeling identifies several areas of split flow which impact the floodplain
status of several structures in the Boulder Creek Drainage Basin.
As part of the proposed Boulder Creek floodplain mapping update, the city conducted an
evaluation of the existing Boulder Creek hydrology as published in the 1977 U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (USACE) "Water and Related Land Resources Management Study,
Metropolitan Denver and South Platte River and Tributaries, Colorado, Wyoming and
Nebraska" report. The result of this effort was Anderson Consulting Engineers 2009
"Hydrology Verification Report for Boulder Creek". This report concluded that the 1-
percent annual chance (100-year) discharges produced in the 1977 USACE study are
reasonable and appropriate for conducting the current floodplain study. The Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District concurred with this conclusion.
Based on the updated flood study, the 100-year flood zone designation for approximately
85% of properties does not change. The study results indicate that the remaining 15%
AGENDA ITEM # 5 PAGE 1
will be properties newly affected or no longer affected by the 100-year floodplain and the
100-year floodplain regulatory and insurance requirements.
The updated study is proposed to be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) for regulatory adoption and will revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) along Boulder Creek. Based on the fact that the study results have been
thoroughly reviewed by a third party expert, staff considers the study results to be the
best available information. Therefore, staff also recommends that the study results be
adopted for City regulatory purposes prior to receiving final approval from FEMA for
flood insurance purposes. Because the City is required to also regulate to the existing
FEMA approved flood study, the most conservative flood hazard estimate from the two
studies will be used.
The proposed flood study will provide the basis for land use permit applications and
flood insurance requirements for properties projected to be impacted by the 100-year
flood. The project public process, which includes two Water Resource Advisory Board
(WRAB) meetings, a Planning Board Meeting and a City Council meeting, began with a
neighborhood open house on October 6, 2010. Staff provided the WRAB with an update
on this item at the July 19, 2010 WRAB meeting and presented the project in detail at the
November 15th WRAB meeting. Additional reference information may be found in the
agenda memorandum from the November 15th WRAB meeting. During this meeting,
staff received feedback from the WRAB members. Staff response and additional
research related to this feedback is included in Attachment A.
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS:
Over the last several weeks staff has received input and comments on the proposed
mapping from a home owner in the Cordry Court neighborhood (Mr. Leserman). Staff
has spent many hours working with Mr. Leserman to answer his questions and address
his concerns regarding the proposed mapping update. As part of this interaction, Mr.
Leserman hired an engineer to evaluate the proposed Boulder Creek floodplain mapping
update in the vicinity of Boulder Creek and Arapahoe Avenue between Folsom and 30th
St. This independent evaluation recommended that additional survey information be
added to the floodplain model and an alternative (split flow) analysis be completed along
Arapahoe Avenue between Folsom and 30th
City staff and engineers from Anderson Consulting Engineers met to discuss this request
and concluded that the existing modeling approach of using one wide flood path between
Boulder Creek and 28th Street realistically represents the anticipated flooding conditions
and meets federal mapping guidelines. However, the project's ultimate goal is to provide
the most accurate floodplain modeling possible and to incorporate feedback from the
public where appropriate. To that end, staff and Anderson Consulting Engineers acquired
additional survey information and conducted an additional analysis to evaluate the 100-
year floodplain, conveyance zone and high hazard zone along Boulder Creek from
Folsom to 30th St. under a split flow scenario. This analysis provides additional research
AGENDA ITEM # 5 PAGE 2
on the floodplain delineation in this area and allows for input and discussion on the most
appropriate way to represent the area flood zones.
The 100-year, conveyance zone and high hazard zone delineations for the previously
presented analysis (Option 1) and the additional split flow analysis (Option 2) are
presented in Attachments B and C respectively. In comparing these maps, it is apparent
that there are no significant changes in flood zone delineations outside of isolated impacts
to single structures. 13 structures are placed in a less restrictive flood zone designation
and 5 structures are placed in a more restrictive flood zone under option 2 when
compared to option 1. Additional detail on the change in structure status in included in
the table below.
Split Flow Anal sis Compared to Original Analysis
100-Yr Conveyance High Hazard
Floodplain Zone Zone
Structures Added 0 1 4
Structures Removed 1 9 3
Staff welcomes additional public evaluation of these alternatives and input on the most
appropriate alternative from board members. Based on staff's initial evaluation, staff
recommends incorporating the results of the additional split flow analysis into the final
floodplain remapping study. It should be noted that under either option, a small
optimization of the conveyance zone that reduces negative effects to properties along
Cordry Court will be implemented. The100-yr floodplain, conveyance zone and high
hazards zone designations for Mr. Leserman's property will not change. Though the
conveyance zone optimization will decrease the amount of Mr. Leserman's property
impacted by the conveyance zone.
Additional information on the Gold Run development and Mr. Leserman's property is
included in Attachment A.
NEXT STEPS:
City staff has researched and responded to feedback received from the public and the
WRAB in the November 15th meeting and based on the results of this response requests
a final recommendation to submit the study findings to the Planning Board, City Council
and FEMA and to use the study for City regulatory purposes. If the project receives a
favorable recommendation, the project will proceed to the city's Planning Board and City
Council, which will also be asked to review and concur that the results should be
submitted to FEMA and used for City regulatory purposes. The Planning Board public
hearing and discussion is tentatively planned for May. The City Council public hearing
and discussion is anticipated to occur in July or August.
Based on recommendations from the WRAB, Planning Board and City Council, it is
anticipated that the study results will be submitted to FEMA for approval in August or
September. It is likely that the FEMA review period may take 6-12 months. FEMA will
AGENDA ITEM # 5 PAGE 3
also solicit public comment as part of their review process. Provided FEMA accepts the
study results, the Colorado Water Conservation Board will also be asked to adopt the
study results and associated flood hazard mapping.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Water Resources Advisory Board recommend approval of the
Boulder Creek Floodplain Mapping Study Update, with incorporation of the additional
split flow research between Folsom and 30th St., and submittal of the study to FEMA for
regulatory adoption and that staff consider and use the results in the regulation of all
annexations and development proposals during the interim period (six to nine months) in
which FEMA is reviewing the study results.
OPTIONS:
Water Resources Advisory Board options for review and consideration include:
■ Accept the updated flood study and recommend that Planning Board and City
Council approve submittal of the study to FEMA for federal review and adoption;
■ Request additional public involvement, information or evaluation of the flood
hazard situation; or
■ Reject the flood study and recommend continued use of the 1987 Greenhorne &
O'Mara flood study.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Summary of WRAB Feedback with Staff Response and Additional
Research
Attachment B -Option 1 (previously presented floodplain delineation)
Attachment C- Option 2 (additional analysis floodplain delineation)
AGENDA ITEM # 5 PAGE 4
Agenda 5 - ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF BOULDER
Department of Public Works/Utilities Division
. ; - Planning and Project Management
PO Box 791
1739 Broadway
s Boulder, CO 80306
(303) 441-3266
(303) 441-4271 FAX
WRAB November 15th Meeting Feedback or Questions with Response and Additional
Research•
1. Is it possible to compare the different map's hydrology, section by section in this study
with the previous study? Has the city actually created more flows within the channel than
from 30 years ago?
Greg Koch, Vice President of Anderson Consulting Engineers, indicated that it would be
difficult to analyze the study on a reach by reach basis and draw valid conclusions
because the two studies were done in different computer models using different modeling
techniques. Based on the updated topographic modeling incorporated into the proposed
computer model and utilizing the enhanced capabilities of HEC-RAS, flow paths have
changed significantly.
The existing hydraulic model for Boulder Creek utilized a flow path along the main
channel, one split flow path encompassing multiple streets north of the creek between
Folsom and Foothills Parkway, and a second split flow path south of the creek a short
distance west of Foothills Parkway. The proposed hydraulic model, in addition to the
main channel flow path, defines 24 distinct split flow paths; 17 of these split flow paths
are located between Foothills Parkway and 6th Street, most of which define flooding
conditions along individual streets north of the creek.
Due to the substantially increased level of detail reflected in the proposed hydraulic
model, significant differences in split flows and water surface elevations would be
expected between the proposed model and the existing model. Differences in flow levels
at any given location due to modeling methodologies would be expected to be much
greater than any differences that may or may not have been caused due to recent
floodplain improvements implemented by the City.
2. How much of the change in flow is due to improved survey information and modern
computer models?
Agenda 5 - ATTACHMENT A
The answer to this question is generally difficult to quantify precisely. However, as
discussed in the previous response, the use of state-of-the-art hydraulic modeling
techniques with the current industry-standard hydraulic model represent a substantial
improvement relative to the hydraulic modeling tools that were available when the
existing study was completed. While the proposed model was prepared using recent
topographic mapping, supplemented with field survey data, it does not appear that
substantial changes to the stream channel have occurred since completion of the effective
model. As a result, previous experience in these types of situations would point to the
change in hydraulic model/modeling techniques as the primary source of differences in
split flows and hydraulic conditions throughout the current study reach.
3. The Board would like to see comparisons of water surface elevations (WSELs) before
and after the Gold Run apartment project. The city allowed that project to be constructed
around 1980 and the city should ensure that no adverse effects where produced from this
development.
The following table presents the base flood (100-year) elevations of various studies over
the past 35 years near the structure located on Mr. Leserman's property:
SOURCE YEAR WSELs (NAVD 88)
Anderson - Split 2011 5,282.3
Anderson - No Split 2010 5,282.2
Muller 1983 5,281.2
Gold Run Constructed 1979-1981 NA
FEMA FIRM 1978 5,282.3
USACOE 1976 5,281.0
Staff has researched the historic tiles associated with the Gold Run development and
determined that the construction occurred during the years of 1979-1981 based on a
settlement agreement with Sherrelwood, Inc. dated December 21, 1979. As part of this
Agreement, Sherrelwood Inc. was required to construct a flood wall to protect the
apartment complex and the City was required to construct channel improvements to
address water surface elevation issues. According to the information presented above,
estimated WSELs decreased near the structure located on Mr. Leserman's property
between 1978 and 1983. Based on the current analysis, higher WSELs are estimated. This
is likely the result of a more refined understanding of the floodplain based primarily on
better modeling techniques, topographic base mapping and survey information.
4. David Leserman addressed the Board and expressed his opinion that the hydrologic report
produced by Anderson Consulting Engineers contradicts itself.
Agenda 5 - ATTACHMENT A
It is our understanding that this comment refers to Mr. Leserman's document which
identifies the following statement contained in Section 3.2 in the "Hydrology Verification
Report for Boulder Creek" [ACE, October 2009], "...1-percent annual chance discharges
arising from the analysis of the first two scenarios under-estimated the effective
discharges..." As well as the following statement from Section 3.1 of this same report,
"...the discharges provided in the table for locations downstream of 9t' Street are over
estimates...".
Taken out of context, these statements appear to contradict each other. However,
considering the documentation provided in Chapter 3 in its entirety, the hydrologic
evaluation is described as a process and at the stage of the process which is discussed in
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 discharges near the canyon mouth and within the extreme west end
of the current study reach were being under-estimated, while discharges further east
(through most of the city) were being over-estimated. Further documentation in the
report discusses the physical reasons for these differences in discharge estimates and how
they were justifiably resolved as part of the hydrologic evaluation.
5. David Leserman addressed the Board and expressed his opinion that there is no evidence
that HEC-RAS provides improved hydraulic modeling over HEC-2.
Improvements in hydraulic modeling procedures from HEC-2 to HEC-RAS are fully
documented in the HEC-RAS River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual,
Version 4.0 [March 2008]. The hydraulic modeling improvements that are most likely to
apply to the Boulder Creek floodplain study are summarized briefly below.
a. HEC-RAS can model dendritic stream systems and fully-looped flow networks,
while HEC-2 can model a single reach and a limited number of tributaries.
b. Cross sections can be defined with significantly more detail in HEC-RAS than in
HEC-2 (500 data points compared to 100 data points). HEC-RAS also supports
the definition of multiple blocked obstructions, levees, and multiple ineffective
flow areas located anywhere within a cross section, while HEC-2 allows the
definition of only ineffective flow areas, and these on a very limited basis (one on
each side of the cross section).
c. HEC-2 computations (and results) are sensitive to the number of data points used
to define the ground surface for areas outside of the main channel, while HEC-
RAS computations (and results) are independent of the number of data points
used to define these overbank areas. Consequently, water surface elevations
computed by HEC-2 for the same cross section may differ, simply by using a
different number of data points to define the cross section.
d. HEC-RAS has more a robust and accurate methodology for computing critical
depth, which can impact final computed water surface elevations for some cross
sections.
e. For bridges with piers operating under either low flow or pressurized conditions,
HEC-RAS uses physically-based geometric data and substantially improved
Agenda 5 - ATTACHMENT A
computational procedures, while HEC-2 utilizes poorly approximated geometric
data and less robust computational procedures.
f. For culverts, HEC-RAS can accurately compute hydraulic conditions for virtually
any combination of shape and size culvert, included culverts used in combination
with bridges (i.e., multiple openings), while the culvert computational capability
of HEC-2 is limited to simple culverts.
6. If there is a slight error in the floodplain map, how will it be corrected?
If an error is found in the floodplain study as part of the city and FEMA review and
adoption process, the city will address the mistake by updating the model to reflect the
corrected conditions. If an error is found in the floodplain study after it is reviewed and
approved by FEMA the city or any property owner can submit a Letter of Map Revision
to FEMA to revise the impacted portion of the floodplain mapping.
7. David Leserman addressed the Board and expressed concern that the proposed floodplain
mapping reduces his property value or will limit his continued use of this property.
Based on recently acquired survey information in the vicinity of Mr. Lieberman's house it
appears that the lowest adjacent ground elevation of Mr. Leserman's house is 5281.02
feet NAVD. Information supplied by Mr. Leserman indicates that the first floor elevation
of his home is at 5283.6 feet NAVD. The proposed 1% chance water surface elevation on
Mr. Leserman's property is anticipated to be 5282.33 feet NAVD under the proposed split
analysis (5282.2. feet under the proposed no split analysis). As a result, the anticipated
depth of flooding will be 1.31 feet around and adjacent to Mr. Leserman's structure and
the first floor of his home should be 1.27 feet above the 1% chance flood elevation.
Based on this information, the anticipated flooding at this location will most likely not
create damage in excess of 50% of the value of the structure and as a result will not
prevent Mr. Lesserman's continued use of his property. Financial protection and disaster
recovery assistance would be available for his structure through the purchase of flood
insurance. In the event that this property does experience more than 50 percent damage,
the city's high hazard property acquisition program may be available for his assistance.
8. To what extent does the city take into consideration the effect on neighborhoods from
proposed floodplain mapping?
Floodplain regulations, including new floodplain maps, are "overlay regulations" in the
Boulder Revised Code that provide restrictions or additional requirement for all
development within a geographic area, irrespective of the basic land use "zoning"
standard. Other "overlay regulations" include; wetlands, airport influence zone and the
medium density zone.
Prior to approving or revising any land use regulations, including the impacts on
neighborhoods from proposed floodplain mapping, the City Council and Planning Board
need to consider many factors, such as:
Agenda 5 - ATTACHMENT A
• protecting and promoting public safety,
• preserving the character of neighborhoods and conserving property values, and
• supporting the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Floodplain mapping studies provide the basis for flood management by identifying the
areas subject to flooding. This information is essential in determining areas where public
safety is threatened and damage to property is likely. The City considers creation and
dissemination of the highest quality flood hazard information to be of utmost importance
so that residents and property owners are able to make informed decisions regarding their
approach to property improvements and flood response. For this reason, floodplain
mapping studies are updated periodically to reflect changes in the floodplain resulting
primarily from flood mitigation improvements, better study technologies, better
topographic base mapping and survey information.
It is important to note that floodplain mapping does not implement any physical changes
in the floodplain and it does not change the actual amount, location or velocity of water
during flooding. It only provides the most practical and accurate estimate of flooding
conditions so that this information can be used by residents, property owners and the city
as a whole. Accurate information on flood risk allows individuals and the community to
lower this risk over time though flood mitigation efforts and to make wise land use and
property improvement decisions.
9. How is the fair market value of a structure, as referenced in section 9-3-8(b) of the
Boulder Revised Code Determined?
The high hazard property acquisition process outlined in section 9-3-8(b) of the Boulder
Revised Code states:
(b) In the event of a flood, when a structure intended for human occupancy located within
a high hazard zone is damaged to an extent exceeding fifty percent of its market value
before the flood damage occurred, it may not be repaired or replaced, and use of the
structure for human occupancy shall cease. After written request of the property owner
within ninety days after the date on which the damage occurred, subject to appropriation
by the city council of sufficientfimds therefore, the city manager shall agree to contract
or purchase the land upon which the structure was located at its fair market value after
the damage occurred.
The City Attorney's Office and other city staff have researched this issue and offer the
following information:
Under the current Boulder Revised Code, if a property owner requests that the city
purchase their property after a flood and the city has money to appropriate for this
purpose, the city will agree to purchase the land upon which the structure was
located at its fair market value after the damage to the structure occurred. This sets
Agenda 5 - ATTACHMENT A
the base level for the price that the city will pay, if requested. It is the floor of the
payment and not necessarily the ceiling.
Given that the city code describes a standard real estate purchase process, there
will be negotiations that would precede the purchase contract and ultimately the
sale. Both the land owner and city would be able to present and discuss
information that could affect the value of the property in its structure-damaged
state. Also, whether to sell the property to the city is entirely in the control of the
land owner since the owner could continue to own the property or sell it to a third
party.
r f
+ C } r rTI
how% fir I~I41 .f.
L~d
er• _ a n~ o nB 1,Vd Ii I , r , f , c r '
WIT TrT CT, 04
INA r:;
'A . 11M. w- ir r r~'P r w~ f \
e!z• ' rr*r! e r T J 'V r r >r IF. _Ap~b A t
qr'
ir- fr f,
4. k
Twv J' f 1 ws +r K, ryr !r ti r T ~ - ~ adj. _ ,
+ r,l 1461 q Wit ,I I ~ ~ I - ~ r 1 ~ - ~ ~ T ~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ ~ Lre
's r,.
fr, W- fir." 111711 13
Aar 'Icr rT-. rr I tlt)1 K71 , Moat W-T
ff , try pri ~.t ..1 T r op, ir in.
Or mor Ali
MI St dr) i
of w c c r j K
W-7 • r i a + N t ~ J, r ~ ~ ~ tires ~ r l 49 1 •4 A MTh r r r. , r
1
■ ~i. •.✓i•3CN~.Y~Y_ i1f~11Y1.':.~~~"~_ .1~:.. PY•• i_ - , k. M ~ V W M• 1+ 111 t • ♦ ♦ . . • ♦ ~
,~G_o ssS t • ~ a , t i c' - ~r Y /'r r r fir' 1 r I r I l ` - ri, fi=
TT_ 1 r t r !
41m cir jin 'r7 1 CW ` _ I I I I t ' ~ ~
1 R zi rr ' r r r r r r r r r.
' ~ ~ ~ - * #J 1 ~ I y~ ~ cam • ..7j•~ :n 1 ~ 1 irl Oft r ow' An Y 1 I I d
41 I 1 •:rr' rr in M 1n M N"W"k W.
9 'rr mr, - I F I 1 II r7it
At- I At ' i~ T r 4w -1i ft- cr
. T F ~ rr ~ ~ ri / 8' R I
Or.
c fT • • T 4
- ~'w`ry+ fi`t' - ~:E'+ INA r
_ .,Tar . 21, - . * zc ` ~Y. t ~ ~ C' ` 7sr' ttftt 'rr- 1• ~Ir s _ y;' 1
/CST fr a* rY -s., ,e,~. - - -i° - q" ~t- 1" ~ ~ a-•~ -
` ~i' i3+ li r- ef? Wolf _ G roue __St
low 111W4 r , 4
• }r- ~T]
i f~ taT ~ t~ r • 1
RIND
'ARM r- f T AF r_;j cr. I 1
4 r 1 t Qn r ' MIR I R, t
• 1 r r ! + ; 4 i . s 1. wr; Ina
7r rFr It *t~
~ iii F ~ r! r ~r' ' ~ v, w .'~,~V~ , • MAW, M*
I~ ~y'. ~A• 4' _ OF 44y
OF-. rc qv- ir ow
-Ara aritoe.Ave -MNDMW-p .
UP? 4w
~tcLArs O S iL iTi lsr. , -1•-t w i r~
'r r,+ r I f 1
-1 Wj yy .
lp Mb
16
'AMR lei"
i t pre 1%
f r. =z*
~ ,fir... ti. ry- • • ~ 1 ~ ~ $1~ •~-L~ lw~' ` -:.1. , - - •I T~ • , 4 ~q H v Y~ y~
v*Fqw
iw-
a4
fir
or 41~ 4t( dp
tf-
mom '1 J • -
oot 4.1,
f itf 'rl J~~tA
w - On.
If A F r t.., Alit- _ - s-
pr IF Ff
- _ c • ...rte- r` -
1,0 •y.. ~ ~ rte: ~ . - r . ~
w ,
114 AL
1 `I
• ti +w. f If Fff- ; _ .
+ * Its ~i
f ~ _ J ee . lit, 10
K• ~nt
41, - F ~Ehl~- fib • N N ~ tr A• y ' ~ r~ v X ~ X'try I % ~ ~ -~Y
1
for
I r
- - - - all
14 n f~ .4
'Al
pc t I:~ f :3 ' ~7■`-c-',v-- - - _4r,
_ •1` - yr~ - ,'I'II
m4ti;
40
t r M' 7-1
IM
- r -
. •~\T. ~ • . ~ 1. -~•5 \
K' L
,mot h~ - i, liF o- . 1ilJ~~ i~ r ' 0,11 1 ' w S.Oft
L 1, FEW 1 4 _ Vr , .
~ 'W, . • ` ° r, - , ago 'a'1 IY•~ ~ v
oil.
A r 1. r sti+i . - -T ~ ~ i I • I. ~ t r F ' _ ' ] 1 ' `t '3 .R diprb "f~.r.t' •
a` ~A ~h i Aff
- c s~rrs , .-r ~r~ • - ."i r , . rr r 4OLw- qwi- wv,w, ~ ff .e. , r 4. m r= no to ~ w4j
a w .......2-. f- 07, MW+s Con r-'r- s ar f- ~•rr- Mw- <r m", s w+ 4mww- r 40
IF, Ir :r
(nom
f~ - Ibm
r~i - i r•r• 481 ~1 rr
All
r
Flo~
vim j { , rte fT4 ~t't -T 1, * IIWW , ' -ow
r1I f. ♦ M gem T I',~ ~ . ♦1 1,~; ` F ~ v:. . 111";
IVA ' {A 4 r " E Its ~ ' ~ ~ 1, . _ _ - 1 ' "2 - - •
• rr _ `T ~ ` 'r_-.1 "r ~ jai ~ • 'ENE' ~ ..t . ~ t ~ : P. ~ • , i T
VA •1,000 11250 r oulder Creek Fol T,
T in, Ib
1; I I 'w - !'r !r wR r ss !r Ilk I lk W! fWSM-1
s s Amkft
Legend
Buildings Removed from the Upsi molsom to 30th
Upstream & 0 125 250 500 750 11000 I i I I I I
100 Year Floodplain (S) Proposed Boulder Creek Dow Downstream Feet
(not shown 24 West of Folsom St 100 Year Floodplain Li mi
39 East of 30th St) Limit
1:1,300 Split FlOV BoUL~ Flow
Buildings Added to the
100 Year Floodplain (3) City Effective Boulder Creek
(not shown 64 West of Folsom St 100 Year Floodplain Structures Affe( kffected
26 East of 30th St)
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical hical I Yr Floodplain
Buildings Remaining in the Creek representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty, ranty Proposed 100- Yr ,
100 Year Floodplain (79) expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness aness
(not shown 432 West of Folsom St of the information contained hereon. Compared to City Effective
53 East of 30th St) Ditch Utilities Division
r .
f-. r
In- ff" "for As-
"COW go ~iit rM,
-vv. - 81 -It 2 74, ilk
' ~!'ti _ A , , .r , • - .may... wo on ?1 i~ fi r 1 ~i ' r -
nly on, va 14 v r, ~ r r c 1
ZAP, .'r I 1 ,r
lam. 1.
Y ~ r • ~ Ci~ rte".. ~ .i1 ~ , ~ i ~ j >i.
Ott -ANN- r rr- T a ,t r r . .a* !F W.Oqr
WIT f r r ` rr fT'r+► 1 M-Or ,H rr `I~~~ I l /.r-' r r ♦ wl- f7-1 MW er FOIL
tp' m am or v- --N g W, 4r z ~ r ` •y~ . , F ~ Ili 71 F
owl WTM Alift :I ■ e~C:. 1 ; t • _ it : i t 1 r'~
MT!s ,fir r~ ~ ~ . R :tii~►+r .Y
7V M- -dew r
fit
;Tl 41r, W'# a . !r A 14 1 fTSr --vi t i r7 I* A& or Ilt o rrr I (r - I ' - l fl
• .-+r.rn • f~ ~.1 n, w N,
% (I - 1
* I or OFA= 1rr h•T1 1 t - - j
c oil 4 l-g~ lit a; y C' t- I~ C C r FT
cw~
ITM-L of f[_ 1 r W• W L• 1 I + ' G .A.~,Fa,~.~.......~.... ,t<
wr z- 'h„ 1 I r I r1 r r
a• " - rr rr l~Tr' - - r' g- q" 4M
r. ~ r J ' ✓f! tt' ` r 1 auuu.wanwuuu• • f [ . 1w 10 ILI MT wo (tow
_ X Aft, ' y '1. 7 ( l-~t r Wt AMRR' xf FT g- g- ok
IT-
_ r Ion IMI I r 41, UIX W JLJ r I
9 t~ rq•- 13,
w 36 It ~rN fit's ! IM rr * g 1 t m a[ low r j
FF- r7- ( n " rev= 4j R r • ~t
rr e ct 97- r ' s i " ter,. r t* FTI fa Fr r Ire r -4 ~w
14.
10 ve ~ - •e Iii I ~•f tt1 ~ ~ i~ Ij~ ~~~'~a ~1~ ~ • 1- ~ s AI.-.I}Sf ~ I't
_ Via.. .w~ .c.. rr ~ , ■ _ ,
► . ' ITT ir F" It lot
G ro v e lisp rr ~ II ,
a :1 t+ _ f ~ licr . "mob ill W-- CT-1 fie
7 r or r
left IMP
104 0 ~ w - ~ ~ • ~ :i IMP cr IS MI. Ilk-
' ~ 1, ~ m %k , 'v - ~r 1 IR' R ~ r TLL -
rTr -win ilt k
1 i L-•-
,r- Y
.ice A 1 • -P b a J d' 1. !~•w ~yf •ti 1 • -'~1c"s~r`RL..I ,~A 1~1 ■IE T fT-
- rr, Y....- f^ rr- rr r-
imam FT- • A ra a h oe
ve%
0 Few ItfC, Ilk- -14t VAN&- vW&
r V - l
X -4 lif- fit MP
r ~
i y J i
Ito
a4 lam. ~ .i rF ~ f ~ • f ~ ~ c~ , ~ ~ + ,
a 4- ,1Et t M f -to
ary. fr- 4 1.~ r
'IF ' I
~ ~ III/~ti'; - R--~ ~ ^41~y - ~ • owl F
•a ' tr' bbl t~.. 1,~, f
• ` ,OPT,_ 6 tea- a ` - r r
1 41 4
.94 PA jvu,ji
f n f 3 ®r;
cap _ ilk. - ,1 jc,
f f
A.. - - _ . r
"low t ~~f . ~r-• * a. • r'-•' . w-' `mob
Sol t 1:: I• 1. is ~ - ~ ~ ~ f - ~ ~y
I
r fir-' z``7. i 'O~ ~ ~ ~ j y OK .IV
L w r t• ~ !,_IItY;' Elf i I E ~Y/ ri- 1
~r~
SfF
Jo.
` FRI
V liw,;~
cow c
T4
A41:00UT -to 44 Vw.
eel
44 op,
F AM
f b r"R •~i~ tot'-
Air
lot
' J ~p E:
IrL 1. 06'
TOr 10
Ilk T
~ 1. _ - ~ _ 40
~ ~ ` , Vii' t~ _ r { - r 51
Apf
40
41546~ '*IN _r Ism'
Ir -D,
CAW f i
rs& Pot Ar-
s - r. - 4 - 1 !!r t-- .r T. oi (r ta•, ( r om NV t•!^ .AM ~.C~~R-R•~P r i~ ! ~ 4- ~t>• `
WiFt APB- .44, R i M1
IW r~.-• 'R'' JWf! (rTTT'rt W- r- W" !►llTr q' Rr i& t►.4fwM 4010r r• Ir" r fir, +1 4p opv
4' T r ; _ r
f a Ire r *Aft
ter-
`q r. MA, ` ' A' % Ilk
rr- r . ~a ~ ~ ~ r t 4• ~ I f` 1 1 ( 1 _ 1 r 1 ~ ! 1 ~ ~ R vS* ~ i- iR. -'1 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ spy' •d i ~w
All, (WL i. ' - ~i~ r
11 ♦ -.fe x'17 !~e - ' r~~~t i'c~ .~J Y lit il.
y1 it s '1 ` j- -s. * .1 Z~ 1r'► Ito.
1 r i i MZOI 0 Alit jrA
AMC V, ~k~ - rimt Awl
, #qc _4M6
T - { ~,jam 1 ~ . ~ - ' / 7 'i~- N r < I~ ~ Y T
VIII: r P r^ r
Ok" i - Taft Dry
qWr ~ t -
Legend
0 125 250 500 750 17000 1 000 1 250 Boulder Creek Foic olsom to 30th
Buildings Removed from the Upstream & ~i l l l lI
Conveyance Zone (9) Proposed Boulder Creek Downc ~ I Feet No Split Flo
(not shown 18 West of Folsom St Conveyance Zone Limit Downstream
Limit 1:11300
20 East of 30th St) Limit Flow
Buildings Added to the of BoUL,
Conveyance Zone (12) City Effective Boulder Creek
Structures Affeci Ifected
(not shown 4 West of Folsom St Conveyance Zone
13 East of 30th St)
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical a rnty, Proposed Conveyaj
Buildings Remaining in the Creek representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty, ant ' ance Zone
Conveyance Zone (17) expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness aness
(not shown 12 West of Folsom St of the information contained hereon. City I Compared to 'ity Effective
2 East of 30th St) Ditch Utilities Division
j lk r .
'CA:1 er 0 "for I As-
'TIJmmr-. Now _ - mfr= Now i 4
ilk jji
ilk
-o -W,-M-Canyo:n B IvU _ 4L _jr 1 . Ir ?1 i~ fi r 1 i ' r -
rr, Op M T T r, ~ r r c 1
it" - 'ff. MWIM 71 ti - ,r
_ v
9' Ir
r r-4 ;%4.1 1 r C r I r fl? T e '~t r c • r' \ r} .41
R' q ;s+a~ r Gower' T fTlt► FOIL
W-T am or n i r7-1v-r W_ W, 91 9- Ir z ~ r ` •y~ . , F ~ .Ili 71 F
W, IS- 4r
wa 10 7,f :I ~ ■ ~ ~ e~C:. ~ 1 ; t = ~ ~ • • _ ~ it : i t ~ 1 r'~
"IS a" _r
~`r 'tr'y R ~~T. 11r.~
GG
mw ow Qj IM 41M. I .T* rra +n , 1 t1 b LIB `i r,
n, -R Via
or a. !t A 14 1fTSr hilt", MA Taw- - IIt o rrr (r _ I ' 1 fl • ~ • .-+r.rn' f~ ~.r _T N w
N,
r * 1 f(I - 1
r r7 I ~i I1 • 4 G fC J- ~t OFA
S- . rkl~' C t ' i~ i r • rr - y wift J1 L~
fir, 77 m ~S R l'T~! r r r' r
00 QM 411 f[_ 1 r W• W L• 1 I + ' G .A.~,Fa,~.~.......~.... ,t<
G Aaa. ~ i + ! o r ` r r _ ~ C7 I ~ ~ r ~ ~ it T .:.r ~ Li ~1 r I r 1 r r
C- 4M Ir Ir MY
• ~ ` I V~~ trP ` ~ ~ auuu,wanwuaaai ~ ~ ~ [ _ ~ 1 • ILI ow . I K. :yr - m ftt t
1 I I I .E. T. R tefJt,STil - - - .t (tow
)It 5 1 q T g- g-
- 4T WD4
or Ir l rT' Ion UIX W JLJ r I
Akio C ~ fn : r-: ~ rTr r r r r r r r ~
•f_ ~T l L - 4` :\1.~.\\\` e\\\\\-aw': •~L~.b..' `1 - _ _ IT. ~I lI1 r' j t7 rr' r T ~'M~b 1 r r>F
rr r rr r J1~r rr-' *_g 1 r Imo, low r j
• ~ I ~ Gott f~ ~ r f T ~ L' f _ !s _ , ~ rT ~Z r r r r' ttts e>c r % r nl i t- ~ • r r R
r • ~t
rr 97% rr ~T m fT p mot' tFr` IMP
we P, I 14.
i
-v W,
INT
Im s.. G r ue
. D r t N f. J I.n f. 11 .~-rim- 41 4~ r- r t
r , r +r- m 11" WIN
11M f~! 4m ; w fs1 .-rr , fl ` or
Ikk 1 A left ~L
Ilk w ~ • :i \ a• 1 . 'r .n _ y _ r rr • . 14 A
Yl,
Oil 7A& fir- `'~'7 `fi~i~. t:~~..1~.Q"•` -win _ + "I '1 a atR•~. II
EEL A rr !T' rT- - i (1< 1j
Ara a" h O(E.,17 ve,w e , C -
Zl m i " tom.'11G , G 1~R - - - _ - v. vii-
L - _ ..YA 8"` ~~~.a'•w~ _ ^•~II'^- jF1. • rr -7 •Sr;~,~' :R w:•~,~ _
two
, Y
a'~ l.r % rt rte. W--
ow
f J
r { Jk. .17 10
*amp r~~ ' i~lT~ti r7,. RI rr i. l 1 1~ 7m 0
r RIFF w
. .v Are. ary. ~ i
F P •
' r
Ole F
V Ito V Awb
wit
1 a r , ~ r
or 41
per. r- _.~fd ~ ~ - f l=
Vol-
4L aw
AS A 4d 1 \ .air--- - • 7 1\, 9 '
fpL t
P4 T• • 1 ` . Z' t lisp
41
VF
fir- "r+ opt Y fall Aso ic-
~ - r • } IFW
OOF
-1 lz
, R~r
- - ' _ rf EF OFF , 4k
. 1 .0 Sli
4L. 'r
I rr 1, r.• •L,._. s
AA
i
fi, 44
1VT
All,
.1 'I• a n.P• ~r r
OWN 1 1~
ti r t'r. M W4 4w Vat I L T. r t ~ F
~4 4Tt ftyF~~f i F MF
4Y. . ~ - \ ~ L . ~ ~ tea.- . -
arc
may/ _ •y~' 1 ~I~ r~•_ A;J•,yr t. ~ , v -.'W ~y 1.d 1 wL~~ ' i~i , d'' '•~T ` t ~
l1 ~ • 01
AN ~t rE . 1 - ~0 t+ ~1 _ _ ~ t' ~ It ~ r , _ ~ ..-1 ~ ~ ♦ ` ' v-~ r I r
tO7Ky
AK Ak. 440
Y _ ~ k~ i ..r tea.' ~ _ ~ f~* ~w f' +•y
rot
IF ~l
_ ~ ~ . - 1 ~ bpi •s~,~,~`r s''-= T.
ACV
T{ ti~ r.' Ilk
~vl ! - I • 4W, r . . - - • rr (1F'- - 1 fft lr rr t-- r r^ rr, (F ra•, r r fL" ft•!` vim 'lC ffa 4MlT 4MrfWP r ~ ! -
_ ~ ~r' f wr.+._ .r ~~-r fir' r-r- Wr qwpqmwr W'f"! i'W'R IM.fw- R•Cr W- 4W, A,a + soma
'IL _ 1 '"-~IRR~y'}ter ~1 ~ i - - r IFL
l 4' T r
lot
{ ` r? • r~ log R- r~ rp f F' i
Sam f4l r Ilk , ir
y " `r rr r . ~ ~ ~ r ~ r 4• ~ ~ f` 1 1 r 1 1 r 1 ~J.- ~ ! 1 ~ R vS* r ~ i ~ .I~
(WL
lit hft Ak rj
M' O jrA
AMC V, Awl
_4M6
T - { ~,jam 1 ~ . ~ - ' T
VIII: r P r^ r
Ok" i - Taft Dry
qWr
Legend
0 125 250 500 750 17000 11000 11250
Buildings Removed from the Upstrea Upstream & I I I I I Folsom to 30th
Feet oulder Creek Fol
High Hazard Zone (6) Proposed Boulder Creek Qownst Downstream
(not shown 11 West of Folsom St High Hazard Zone Limit Limit
10 Fast of 30th St)
1:1,300 No Split Flot Plow
Buildings Added to the of BoUL~ F,
High Hazard Zone (13) City Effective Boulder Creek
(not shown 16 West of Folsom St High Hazard Zone Structures Affect( ected
3 East of 30th St)
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical hical
Buildings Remaining in the Creek representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty, rantYJ Proposed High Hazc lazard
Zone
High Hazard Zone (6) expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness aness
(not shown 8 West of Folsom St of the information contained hereon.
3 East of 30th St) Ditch Utilities Division Compared City Effective
j lk 77:k 1 - rr. r i GO-6 - r .
7 RR _ 1 I. ' rr
As-
~ ~ _ ' .r. r. ~ .p,~ . ~ _ ~ 111'' r rM,
A \ i " • V r F Ak. h r l r ,
wry.. ilk
?1 i~ fi r 1 i ' r -
4w Ca nmo:n~B lwd r, ~ r r c 1
,r
~r• show. Arr
xl' - ~ ~Ci~.. ~ .ice r ` ~ ~ j r-R >i.
.•Y'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ter, , r.-. , r. POW
w a - 7r_ FOIL
F T. • G ~ ~ ~ _ ~ r ~ _ =R` • ~ till[ - 71 F
ow t
1 • ~ ~ ~ , . a J'.:-,r. ~ - I M • F . _ ~'~,_.t ~.~r. • i ~~t fT t t es~C:. / f 1
f y. r t 1 r'~
Ojai
MMA.
t wr ` e, y + w fr- Jon Mir- r
-It I- 4r- ~ f71 Itl ~ d ~ I-r
fi V r _ t r7, I l J~~ ~1 ,
■ 1 rTir! t { 1 t'r ~R 1 9 _ . u ' I y • fJ a-t n, w N,
maw .r 1 r= MIA
x C' i, I t < < i . rr
try ~S {i• f 1 • r r r r _ -1~J,' ~ t i , " r ~ _ it
' G .A.~,Fa,~.~.......~.... ,t<
0 s s IV. r 1 7 Y L Y 4 r , C; rr ri ~
At, J. f rr (tow
hip Alma.- Its _ !s a. I:a w r l w 'r. W-7 rrT CT- IV
frM_ it r I ►r - r r r r r r r r 'k
-Ilk Ike I Ax lip I~ 1• •-rf T !1 ` ~ rr. N w rw I r I 41, UIX W r JLJ
I
13 c
Irr ~ ~ wrr ~Tt~ err tr •ti, ~i Ir m low r j
IV. IN' x .rT Irr R r • ~t
dR' fT- Cl rr an rt , e e - T f 'rr ~i
nrl 14.
j'_ it.a
~ ~ .KID •J° n 4fi rT - I. CTT (r.
OR V. TA WT 'wItoti J
41" an
alp,
I I .-rl ~i
41, yJt.ry~1 s , jj Poh- I L.
r l1 = ~ 4 y r ~ ~ I t \ y r~' TT I i y r f a/ - I r low 4m cr
rT_
~.I . i ti . 1 r eat m IW
rT-
t.~ _ 1n11 ss f f_ -
awl" 'M ry-
rT- - 1 r~ - - - - rr, YTS T'^ _f* rrs.
r. qrv- VT- A rra a h e Ave ! F 7R CT-
thl& ti.. 0' s ISSI AMIL -IN
' - ~ ` • .k -plc ' ~ - t
t MP ~r
~c. If
v * I re
- ~ - ~ r+II: • fir ~ ~•Y-, ~ . ' _1i..~s..ci
I ; -
<< fu
I sir i`i'i - - • J
MW ;Ate, • r v n
114 17 ^it Ir r -1 oil' h- ~ I
it It Fj
W* or ' .r
JL
^4 ~
fir- J • i~ . , • ~ ^ !l
M f
• ~~{3 is a. AS t` +:4 f r .
All. j _ ~ , _ _ _ _ - - - , ~ ~ fir.: _ _ -'C~ • . Y _ ' - • sue- • 10 - - •
F'Y
Ate # - v~11
AII.
46
kf i i I _ r
Oll •
vim
r
fit I
f rtnt, .
r~ -
- < 3r fit.- - r ~
,c vt. , • 'T _ : - - ,may" • 1 rum
'7 V44
. as
it -fit
i r M. ~ ~ 1 ' j yy ~ 4 Jet
• _ _ - is
49
t , 1 S. •i , 40 JIB
Vo*_ Ae
k
r • , 4. 4r mss ,
low OR' - opt r It I _ •I a e FI
1- 4 10
• f. 1 k~ a i Fr' i Pok-p:
r I.. CAW
46 w
r mss- f..? r. s. 4 • ~r T ~r oft 91* qw Tr! !a tt~iYTar!'.i r Al
C.. . ~ h'~l'_ -rrr.n . r' - R? T^ T' ttJ Y- WtT7-• qgWGWWr "r QT W + 41"Rf 46V#f~' molp Alm
J11L
- 1 r !t
r 40L ' y X11 r'c t k ~ !M r
r • log rr ~1r v~
Vol* -,Nab f4 1 Ilk
- s? L^ ~ ° f f f
(WL Ow. - L ~a±.~~!'!`' ► - :yam'"' ?F._1 f b.ass~-_, it mot:
_ • "'-fit _ _ .~'.ta ~:ar, ~ * ~ t~ .1 Adiv- it laft
Tom- _ , 3-7 I<tr s 'nom 1 ` yj ,z rY r
Awl
T
Taft dry
§ w W-- 4F
Legend
Buildings Removed from the u 0 125 250 500 750 11000 1,000 1,250 Boulder Creek Folc. olso to 30th
Upstream & I I I I
100 Year Floodplain (9) Proposed Boulder Creek p I I Feet
(not shown 24 West of Folsom St 100 Year Floodplain Do Downstream
39 East of 30th St) Li r Limit 1:17300
Split Flow fow
Buildings Added to the of BoUL~
100 Year Floodplain (3) City Effective Boulder Creek
(not shown 64 West of Folsom St 100 Year Floodplain Structures Affeci 'fected by
26 East of 30th St)
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical hical "r Floodplain
Buildings Remaining in the Creek representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty, rant Proposed 100- Yr y,
1 i Effecti
100 Year Floodplain (78) expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness aness
(not shown 432 West of Folsom St of the information contained hereon. Compared to City ve
54 East of 30th St) Ditch Utilities Division
lk 1F r .
f-. r
In- As-
l rM,
-vv. - 81 - ...w 'r . 2 74, _jr ilk
' ~!'ti _ A , , .r , • - .may... ?1 i~ fi r 1 ~i ' r -
-t r -y Can o n~Bl va _ r, ~ r r c 1
ZAP, ~ low 14 .'r I 1 ,r
lam. 1
Y r r • ~ Ci~ rte".. ~ .i1 r , ~ i ~ j >i. NbL
Ott -ANN- r r fl ? T a ,t r r . ai? !F r r r r fry ff^ i~_ y~ ! , ~ ~ 8
fr- :,rte, e }
WIT FOIL
tp' W-T z ~ r ` •y~ . , F ~ .Ili 71 F
a ' r iT rT rr fCm m Wit' r D
owl tT or, R' rr loft :I ■ e~C:. 1 ; t • _ it : i t 1 r'~
MT!s rr, TIP
er Ow r
fit
F.. ot
;Tl 41r, qW.) or a. !r A 14 1fTSrSltiIt" Ilt o rT7 ya _ (r - I ' l fl • .-+r.rn • f~
~.r n, w N,
% r * I f(I - 1
'$I NI (r
c oil 4 l-g~ lit v 'ice t y ~J r C I I1 • 4 G f~C' - an 0 • Ante
m ~ ~ fr l'T~! ~ r r r ' r
T i ~ ~ '.-~i~~ Y►- - ~i.~ :milli J. ~ - it }a ~ _ I •I i , _ ~f f[_ 1 r W• W L• 1
I + ' G .A.~,Fa,~.~.......~.... ,t<
a• r" - rr rr : , . ' - C- 11 qrT ~ mss: ' I ~ r r _
r. ~ r J ' • ✓f! f' ` r 1 auuauuuuwuuu • • r [ . ILI k. P, 1w 10 .
I K : r r +1 - T ftt t 1 I I I • .E. fr. R (tow
rlimb r . r'f: v arm WN !I r 1 r u r rr _ ; r r
r r r r r
_ FT, Ion b. w I Fill 4111111 f, I r UIX W JLJ r I
- f~• ~T rr-- 1'~ t - •ara.~~~~ . ~.~.a~.e.:. ..2o~.e.. r I T . fib . `
w 36 It JET fIr f i~ fro fr• r r rT tE _ ~sy own" T AL _ 7 - - low r j
rr- 0 r>F ri- r rr r J1~r rr a 1 T ? rT. ~Z rf[ R r • ~t
• C trr-- m Fr a.. Q f -i • ~r~ _a
T lrf: 1 T I' r i • ~r J r ~r• _ ~ r'r-• rr _ s.i. , ~ T r ~ -1 1 ! no C'T.
14.
10 ve ~ - •e Iii I ~•f tt1 ~ ~ i~ Ij~ ~~~'~a ~1~ ~ • 1- ~ s AI.-.I}Sf ~ -y.
it ~ rt+
LAI.
~2 W. It lot
G ro v e lisp 1 I. 9 ■ - - - - ••r ! ?Ys nr er-p- III' IMP - 'I rr ~ II ,
41" an
a :1 t+ _ f ~ licr . "mob ill eIr Alm VT fie
. 4r 4r Im 4w 7 r or r
4urv left 10111
104 0 ~ w - ~ ~ • ~ :i ~i l~ ~ r~ ~ ~r. ~ t • thl ! ~ i f ~ i-: _ rr>~E' A -_tw
r",~ _ ~ rr. 's Ilk-
~r 1 IR' R ~ r TLL -
rrr N! IL 1 4- _ ilt k
a~ -
4
.ice A 1 • -P b a J d' 1. !~•w ~yf •ti 1 • -'~1c"s~r`RL..I ,~A 1~1 E' fT fT Y....- f^
rr- rr r-
imam rr . Yt-
Ara, ahoeAve
0 Few ItfC, _
I r .
or
4-1 f, fill r ~
a
1A i y J i
-Mh
•~i1i - - r ~ A
ary. fr- ~ 4~ a 4- ~t •tb ~ ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 1.~ r
'IF ' I
~ ~ III/~ti'; - R--~ ~ ^41~y - ~ • S/ V F
•a ' tr' bbl t~.. 1,~, • a- U4 Er A* om f
2 - t -
1 41 4
.94 PA jvu,ji II ~ 1
,K f'
cat _ t_~ ~ ~
m ~r Irv
w
Fit- .p AL.
1111 T • '
1 4~h I
r fir-' z``7. i 'O~ ~ ~ ~
L w r t• ~ !,_IItY;' Elf 40 , ~ . ~ . - r • s - ..fix. ~ '.i
aft 4 SfF
` FRI a lop"
Sli
cow c
A41:00UT -to E - . l a 44 Vw.
eel
44
r
f b r"R •~i~ tot'-
1 - _ 1 •
lot
44, 06' ok _P
TOr 3 L .f1! I oz. 10
T
M V :F • ,,.t.: ,ter-~_- _ • , r r ~ 1 , _ x ,
4L
404
4lu
-t Apf
40
41546~ '*IN
- rz .-ss!_ .c+' •40*
CAW f i
rs& i Ar-
s - r. - tr(~^ - 1 !T rri-- fr- rr,rr ra•, rr vAW ~.C~~R'R•~P ice! ~4- ss ` - . Mt. ~ • ~ ~ - , ~a•
`'fir ~ -
3 r .41 ,rr . . r ,Mm.-. .fit' ~f! RTTT'r'f r- !Kr-. 4WOMWr m' Rr a.~w~ ~r r• t" r s, IF fir, +1
vmm 1, ~i i ~ i ~ ~I'~T I~r = . ~ ' n:: rt~ ~ r4a t•'1 'r_~i ~ - r ~ ~ ie r
M1 i ` ~ ~ n / - ~ - - ~ . _ Wit' ~ ~i..7~.
14 , 4' T r ; _ r
f r a Ire r 40 '41
`q r. MA, ` ' A' % r
y" `r rr r . r f 4• ( f` 1 1 r 1 1 r 1! 1 R vS* r i :etmto ~r"► .
All, (WL . K spy' •d •.i ~w 74
laft
y1 it s '1 ` j- -s. * .1 Z~ 1r'► Ito.
1 r i i MZOI 0 Alit jrA
AMC V, ~k~ - rimt Awl
, #qc _4M6
T - { ~,jam 1 ~ . ~ - ' / 7 'i~- N r < I~ ~ Y T
VIII: r P r^ r
Ok" i - Taft Dry
qWr ~ t -
Legend i
Buildings Removed from the Upsti 1,000 1,250
Upstream & 0 125 250 500 750 17000 BoulderFeet olsom to 30th
Conveyance Zone (18) Proposed Boulder Creek Dowr Downstream ~i l l l lI
(not shown 18 West of Folsom St Conveyance Zone Limit Limit
20 East of 30th St)
1:1,300
'r0w
Buildings Added to the of BoUL~
Conveyance Zone (11) City Effective Boulder Creek
(not shown 4 West of Folsom St Conveyance Zone Structures Affec Ffected
13 East of 30th St)
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical hical
Buildings Remaining in the Creek representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty, ran ty, Proposed Conveya, 9.Yance Zone
Conveyance Zone (9) expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness aness
(not shown 12 West of Folsom St of the information contained hereon.
2 East of 30th St) Ditch Utilities Division Compared i 'ity Effective
j lk r .
fir
R' dr "for I As-
'TIJmmr-. Now Now i 4
1:1-t ji;' •.~,F~ I T~; ':tea, ~ 1 , •1 ~ I~ ►t I - ~ _ - ilk
4L _jr 1 . Ir ?1 i~ fi r 1 i ' r -
rr, ! ! rY _ -o - _M Cana ~o n ~B IvU up r, ~ r r c 1
,r
_ v
Y I r r r r I fl'? T f 4e !:~t ' •±i r r 8 R~,•. !F }
.41 4t
An' FT Gower' . r T fT t► r r f j w MW W-T FOIL
! T r am or n i W, 9- or z ~ r ` •y~ . , F ~ .Ili 71 F
W, IS- 4r ow fr,-Nb Ir m . 4QW&-ol 1 ---r i
104 :I ~ ■ ~ ~ e~C:. ~ 1 ; t = ~ ~ • • _ ~ it : i t ~ 1 r'~
Tis Wet. w in
I If off:
17 IM 41M. W_r
Fob
or a. !t A 14 1fTSr hilt", ~ ~ . l & . ~ I It ~ o rTT ~ ' ~I_ . (r _ II ' _ ,1 fl-
• ~ • .-+r.rn ' f~ , ~ ~.r _T N w N,
r * I f(I - 1
OFA
wl"
' f- I~ 1 I tr ' rrrr 177 IT "'7• , - ! tom.. _ ~lv~ Q1 r~ rx m ~S R l'T~!
r r r' r
® - - , i %z f[_ 1 r W• W L• 1 I I ' G .A.~,Fa,~.~.......~.... ,t<
r I r 1 r r
C- 4M Ir Ir MY
• f'1` f ~ auuu.ualLWUaW • • r [ _ ~ . ILI ow . I •s . : y r - m ftt t 1 I I
I (tow
AM F"T Ibis .~R~ •rr 4 g- g-
4-T • ,orb E rr '
rT, Ion UIX W JLJ r I
{ t - y ie l~~y C ~ fn : r-: ~ rTr r r r r r r r ~
1 JET nr 4w J6 I 4WZ tLj, ' ~ r i r>F ~ ~ fr r- fr ma'r' r qq ''rr-• ~_-a• 1 ~ r ~ ~
r~[ fife r f fT fL^. r imp" low r j
~ ~ fr' f-i' r' .'•r rte'. I. r I~~ ~ ~i• f-ro• qu US R r • ~t
fr_*T m fT ` .a .rr t T. Q ( f , mar IMP
I 14.
i
n~~,,x t~ .~_>_~_.-ter- "..=v~~
INT
G rovie -Al:~! - fi ♦ ~t~. c i ~ CI- ._~ta.~r,L..Li: ~ i =t.-~w► IIr r i
fir r I< C II Ir ,y • • :J f. 11 .~-rim- 41 4~ r- r, r
C , r +r- m 11" WIN .
fs1 .-rr , fl ` or
w • At 14 A
4 4& Ap,
F m =per y " `fir
ryr Arl .
fir 6, ANT, *AL
iff. rte- rr r
IV' fr - ,
,A ra p .a , , e , I ve E .n W~
Zl R! P! q' tom. '11G, ~R - - - _ - v. vii- ,
L ~ - _ 1~ ~ ~ ..'YA 8"` ~~~.a'•w~ _ ^•~II'^- jF1. • I•~ -7 •~Sr;~- -X• :R w:•~,~ _ T' qawwa~ Ism r Mir"
_ _ =w
wf~
, Y
rte. W-7
_ ! ~-'tJ ' ~ ~ '~'l ~ ~ J i _ ` 'Wi't t ~i~, : ' - -~~s l~ Afti ow
'bra
k-4
r f << 10~
r s1r1 ~'1 I slims a a 6[-s! i~ ilk. .2 k t !a'r i. ' ~ ~ } i. ~ - tc. Y r~~
' ~ dllT~ti ~ ~ ri . RI ! - - - _ 1 '~~i ~ 0 *Ll
1 1 11 L low ' c •
r X 11 I I Wk *l
TIN I ir Ile f „y~, _ ~ _ , . ~ • rte... t _ ~ ~ . 4 .
Are ~ ary fr_ . r
' r
Ole Iff" T ;!*At - 4.~ Ok. !mot ° 4 (!r . V A 1 ^'C1i~ l ~.A- _ '`.c tTr r. tl mfT•
~4 Ah A. F
V Ito - '411
-ate 3 _
ti 1 44 1 ~h
• ~ ~ - ' ~ I 1.x•1 1+ ~ _ h •1 / t~ 2•
or .94 41
4L IV. f 4
AV lit: 1 4 Ar -
-Ad
UA + ,,'►y Ilk, . s -6 Q' ~ 1 X~ F r
Q 'Of1
-Ift It, I IL
_I fit. •E a FT7
T kf _ r
off + 1 ~
'If
, EF OFF 3
Its f F 'T` T - - y
off f" W 4L. O i - cow v
ft. , 1` M f tfi
\ OF
jr; 44
\ , + w
Tr PI 41A v, .14
.1 7• a .rrr 1 r
ti r t'M ("fit
410 N M4 /N ~ 6v 4ca~ S
N
\'~..+#;A~
fig- Aid 10
f- d ANCON111 -m. ';M* r I R v P , - - • k 4
oil
i -
4 *aF y fr, qtr Poor,
4k
JIL .I
♦ `'"-~IRRy'}ter ~1 ..•:r~ ~i
71- 77 lCr+~
44 CAW
AL, T{ ti~ r.' Ilk
Cr fy- c1. 1 !IC IJfT t<'vw-' rr •a•• r r qM fT g•!'` VAM
3 r .r ,r; •r !f mfr Wf4W MT'T-rt W- r-, !Kr qromPAr Wrcm a.lfwm!•r .r•w-- W- llr~ , 0 I 101i
-Ile
l ~ 4' /r r ; _ r
{ ` r? • r~ Ir
ter- i.••~ '4fi+lilll ~ i . _r_ ~:~Y~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ewj ~v
y " `r rr- r . ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ r 4• ~ ~ f` 1 1 . 1 1 r 1 ~ ! 1 R vS* r ~ i ~ .I, Iri
_ ♦ i .ors " - _ _ ~W • _ - _
_ • ~ '~c.,~;:~ - :1~'.~. ~ :ate ' _ ~ ~ `~lllfitp~`. 11 ~ lit
1 r i i MZOI jrA
AMC V, ~k~ fa- Awl
_4M6
T - { ~,jam 1 ~ . ~ - ' T
VIII: r P r^ r
Ok" i - Taft Dry
qWr
Legend
0 125 250 500 750 17000 11000 11250
Buildings Removed from the Upstr 1 1 Feet oulder Creek Fols
Upstream & I i I I I I :)Isom to 30th
High Hazard Zone (7) Proposed Boulder Greek Dow Downstream
(not shown ?1 West of Folsom St High Hazard Zone Limit
Limit
10 East of 30th St) 1:1,300 i.:.kc e
Split Flow
Buildings Added to the of BoUL~
High Hazard Zone (15) City Effective Boulder Greek
Structuilpoe%s Affecte
(not shown 16 West of Folsom St High Hazard Zone
3 East of 30th St)
The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical hical
Buildings Remaining in the Greek representation only. The City of Boulder provides no warranty, rantY, Proposed Haza~ gzard Zone
High Hazard Zone (8) expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness aness
(not shown 8 West of Folsom St of the information contained hereon.
Utilities Division Compared Effective
3 East of 30th St) Ditch