Laserfiche WebLink
-1- • <br />In order to provide objections that are meaningful our <br />first step is to make comments on United Companies <br />Reclamation Plan as submitted in May and revised July 16, <br />1990. Some review of their statements are necessary for <br />clarity of our questions. <br />In the May 15, 1990 plan submitted by United Companies <br />they indicate they will construct a berm on the east and <br />south to protect withstand the 100 year flood. (item 4). <br />~7aci Gould, Mesa County Engineer says the site is _ <br />practically uniform at 4600 feet. The 100 year floo <br />elevation is 4599. (item 4) <br />7nited says in (item 4) they will build the berm at <br />4602 giving 2 feet of freeboard should there be a flood. <br />In the same item on page 3 IInited says it will provide <br />for a 1 foot freeboard above the 100 year floodplain. <br />Our comments: <br />1. There is a one foot difference between a two foot high <br />berm and a 1 foot high berm with no real explanation of what <br />they are referring to here in relation to the 100 year flood <br />possibility. <br />In their July 16 reply to Colorado Mined Land <br />Reclamation, IInited companies say: <br />"Prior information had indicated that a portion of the <br />site that is to be affected by the gravel operation was <br />within the 100 year flood plain. We have since seen <br />documents that this is not the case and that the 100 <br />year floodplain limit is totally outside the project <br />site." <br />On August 23, 1990, Gilbert R. Wenger visited the U.S. Army <br />Corps of Engineers [Planning] (764 Horizon Drive, Gd Jct) <br />and was both told and shown on a map that the 4599 /1 S ~( <br />floodplain boundary extends to C'~ Road over the proposed ~-(' <br />gravel site. Included in our visual presentation on page 6 <br />is a :map by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers showing the ~ (, /-L <br />floodplain. The emphasis line on the original appears dark <br />on this xerox but it also shows the floodplain as covering <br />the land where the proposed pit would be located. <br />2 have been told by individuals working in mapping that it <br />is not uncommon to find aerial photos with topographic <br />contour lines on them, to be off a foot or so in some <br />terrain. We can only assume United Companies were looking at <br />such aerial photos with projected contour lines. <br />United Companies is trying to use their maps as <br />'u~ stiEication to avoid constructincT the 100 Year floodplain <br />