1997-07-10_REVISION - M1981302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Revised: 07/06/97 Minutes - June 26 27, 1997 Page 27 quite a bit higher. The gravel deposit was quite a bit lower and accordingly they thought to revise the Reclamation Plan. Another item that needs to be considered as well is that SB120 greatly affected the way pits are reclaimed. Augmentation is an expensive part of doing business today, it wasn't that way back in the 1970's and 1980's. It is certainly an opportunity when you can reduce the amount of exposed water so that the evaporative loss is less. He showed Exhibit 15E - Slide Presentation to show the site as it is today for the Board. Les Botham, representative for Leonard Rice Consulting Engineers, introduced himself to the Board and explained that he was the engineer who designed the levy in the first place. As he spoke, he referred to maps along the wall(s). The administered flood plain—the one that has been approved by the City, County, the Water Conservation Board, the State and FEMA—shows that all of the area inside and what is on the floor of the pit, is outside of the flood plain. The berm is an existing feature as it was designed in 1979 and it was built in 1980. It is reflected on the typography for the map that was taken in November 1980 and is also reflected in both of the reclamation maps, so he feels that Mr. Taylor and himself have a difference in opinion. He also referenced cross section maps. Mr. Botham also went on to state that the berm did not create any problems in terms of flooding to the north. The berm actually pushes some more water over to South Boulder Creek which allows the water to get through the bridge instead of bumping into the road, as it does at one point, and down into the suburb. The berm actually has a positive impact with what is going on there. Even if someone was to assume an overtopping or a failure of the dike and a lot of water getting into the pit, there is actually no difference in the amount of water in terms of either the rate or the volume of water that would end up down at the bottom of the whole operation, going over the highway and into the subdivision. What is requested in the TR, with raising the dike, has to do with increasing the safety and adding morepremivater, basically to handle more floods. If that was granted, it in no way precludes any other master planning consideration. Mr. Schwarz explained that the Flatiron property has been the subject of very bitter debate, particularly over the past 18 months or so, as it relates to the purchase of the site by CU. Western Mobile's concerns are that if there was no change to the proposed Plan and no change in landowner in particular, there would be no forum for the grievances that the City and County are now airing which aren't supported by many of the records considered and that they have supplied. Mr.