Laserfiche WebLink
-z- <br />berm as they clearly state in reply on July 16, 1990 as <br />follows: [direct quote] "In light of the fact that the 100 <br />year floodplain does not exist within the affected area, we <br />rescind our committment to build the berm on the south <br />bounc:ary that is adjacent to the Colorado River. We instead <br />defer to the advice and recommendation of the Mesa County <br />Engineering Staff". <br />It i.. our personal opinion that the Mesa County Engineering <br />located in the County Commissioners building wants to get <br />approval of this project because the County Commissioners <br />approved the permit [contingent on CMLR]. In less than two <br />week. after the County approved the gravel pit application, <br />United Companies donated 18 acres of another gravel pit to <br />the F:iverfront Commission. Plans had already been developed <br />for land use of this donation. (from release in Grand <br />Junction Daily Sentinel.) <br />In early July, Mr. Bill Kyle and Gilbert Wenger called upon <br />Jaci Gould the County engineer and were told in response to <br />our c.uestions about the floodplain, that "yes, I am going to <br />approve it as soon as United Companies makes application. <br />We did not have any opportunity to entertain a complaint <br />with the Floodplain Board until an application was made. <br />Since• we could not learn when an application was received, <br />we could not make our objections known before the permit was <br />approved. The County was not interested in informing us. <br />We strongly disagree with IInited Companies statement that an <br />examination of the riverbank (north shoreline) is <br />structurally sound by simply walking along it with a short <br />visual examination. This is another example of the County <br />Engineer willingly overlooking serious bank problems. The <br />top 8 to 10 feet of bank is soil. Below that is gravel. <br />When the river flows are high, (and not even as high as the <br />39,900 cfs in 1983-84) water will cut the dirt bank and <br />there is a continual northward loss of riverbank. <br />United Companies (and Jaci Gould of the Mesa County <br />Engineering staff) admit there is one highly visible slump <br />area ten feet long. See photograph on page 3 of visual <br />section. <br />United Companies lists 5 precautionary measures that really <br />do nct address the bank problem: <br />a. Horizontal flow of the stream along this stretch. <br />b. Integrity of the riverbank for several hundred feet is <br />substantial. <br />c. Construction <br />freeboard at <br />d. Depth of the <br />minimum 100 <br />of the slope <br />river bank. <br />of the earthen berm to provide a minimum <br />the 100 year flood level. <br />actual bank that will be left intact, <br />Eeet from edge of the channel to the top <br />with a 5:1 slope along this section of <br />