Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( • <br />~ STATE O ,~ ~I ~~' ~ O <br /> CDIOial>01y A71R(OVOf R~+710.V flOARU <br />Dcpanrcni nl Ntlwal Rrwur[y~ ~rM 1, J 10C9 ~~ <br />IDOL ~• ` <br /> <br />B7J Srul, Ccntrn n~al flmMmt <br />~' { <br />, <br /> <br />1]U Shaman Svnl 4+ <br />~l <br />`- Y <br />' Dem er, Cnlondu B010J <br />Phony. (JJ31656 )+•11 JEFFERSON COON <br />~~ <br />::\v . <br />. <br />P.., <br /> . <br />... <br /> RKhLA U. l+mm <br /> Ga.emor <br />' J, \Villym McDonald <br /> DIIMOI <br />' March 2, 1982 Da:,dw.waatr <br />DeW~y D~rKror <br /> Mr. Ed Anderson <br />' Jefferson County Board of Adjustment <br /> 1700 Arapahoe <br /> Golden, Colorado 80419 <br />' Dear Mr. Anderson: <br /> The Colorado Water Conservation Board staff has completed <br />' a flood hazard review for the "Cooley Gravel Company, Special <br /> Exceptio n Application for Expansion of the Morrison Quarry" <br /> (Case Nu mber M80-2 53.7A Expansion). We offer the following <br />' findings and recommendations for your consideration. <br /> Findings : <br />' 1. There are no designated or otherwise identified 100- <br /> year floodplains on any of these drainages other than <br />' those indicated in the SRSR report listed above. <br /> 2. The SR&R hydrology appears reasonable as prepared by <br /> Bishop Associates Inc. The values for the 100-year, <br /> 6-hour storm are: <br /> Gulch A 200 cfs at lower edge of proposed quarry site (132 Ac) <br />' Gulch B 130 cfs at lower edge of proposed quarry site (82 Ac) <br /> 3. Three drainage alternative are presented in the report. <br />' Any of the three would be acceptable from the floodplain <br />standpoint if properly done. However, Alternati~ae I would <br /> appear the most desirable. <br />' Recomrnen dations: <br />Drainage Alternative I is the most desirable from the floodplain <br />' management standpoint. <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />