Agenda 5 ATTACHMENT A ______________________________________________________________________________

CITY OF BOULDER
Department of Public Works/Utilities Division Planning and Project Management PO Box 791 1739 Broadway 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 maps 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. Lesermans property: SOURCE Anderson - Split Anderson - No Split Muller Gold Run Constructed FEMA FIRM USACOE YEAR 2011 2010 1983 1979-1981 1978 1976 WSELs (NAVD 88) 5,282.3 5,282.2 5,281.2 NA 5,282.3 5,281.0

Staff has researched the historic files 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. Lesermans 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. Lesermans 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 9th 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 HECRAS 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. Liebermans house it appears that the lowest adjacent ground elevation of Mr. Lesermans 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. Lesermans 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. Lesermans 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. Lessermans 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 citys 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 sufficient funds 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.