Laserfiche WebLink
• Loretta Van Norstrand Page 3 of 3 <br />July 4, 2001 <br />I also take issue with their response statement to Concern 3 (page 3) that "floodways were <br />determined by ... the method of equal conveyance." There was no discussion or indication in the flood <br />study report that I received that a "floodway "analysis was performed. The information I received <br />and reviewed was only for evaluating Steady Flow Water Surface Profiles, although the copy I <br />received was of poor reproduction quality and incomplete. However, there was no evidence that I <br />recall that a Floodway Encroachment Calculation had been performed. Even had there been an <br />encroachment study, it would still be incorrect due to (1) having selected a stream gage on a much <br />smaller drainage basin (Fish Creek) calling it the Trout Creek Gage, and (2) for using questionable <br />cross sectional data to develop the HEC-RAS model setup files. <br />Loretta, I am sorry to inform you that I cannot be at the July 25 meeting. I said previously I would <br />be there if possible but I will be out of town tl~e week of July 23-27. I suggest you forward this <br />response letter to DMG along with a comDle[e copy of my report (don't just photocopy parts of it). <br />[f DMG reads my findings then you will have made available to them the questions I believe are <br />legitimate concerns to raise with the Camilleti's. If they choose not to read my responses or to act <br />on them then my attendance at the meeting would be of no use anyway. In the interim, if DMG has <br />any questions they may cal] me at their earliest convenience. <br />Sincerely, <br />Aquatic Environ//m/e~~/''ntal Services, Inc. <br />Coy Ph.D. .E., P.L.S. <br />