PERMFILE117978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~~~ S June 5, 2 Ol To: County Commissioners RECEIVED From: Milner Area Residents Camillett Pit #2JFloodplain JUN 1 4 1001 Division of Minerals and Geology Attached is information prepared by George McCoy, Ph.D. of Aquatic Envvorunental Services. Dr. McCoy has reviewed the floodplain study presented by Paul Currier and has come to the conclusion that it is wrong. He lists several facts to confum his reasons. Dr. McCoy indicates that none of the cross-sections have been validated. Mr. Moon told Dr. McCoy that he did not do a ground survey of the properly. That the information used by Paul Currier consisted of a few recording shots at certain points by Moon that were designated by Currier. Moon said, "I collected data where I was told to collect it." This is not a valid survey and probably the reason why none of the maps were stamped, sealed or signed by Moon, as a legal survey would have. The cross-sections that the Commissioners Gave seen are models manipulated by Currier and have not been validated by any source. The usual validation would be from actual physical cross-sections drawn by the surveyor and compared with the computer modeling. In this case there were none drawn to make any comparison. You do not know whether the model has been distorted or not without adequate validation. John Eastman is not a competent source. He told Dr. McCoy "I do not know anything about HEC modeling." At the very least, he should have requested the field survey cross-sections to compare what the engineer does in the model. We want to see validation of the cross-sections by an independent, qualified surveyor. We want to be assured that the model has not been distorted to fit the applicant's needs. 'One major example of miscalculation is the gage use to show peak flow for Trout Creek. The gage used for the report accounts for only 20 percent of the total Trout Creek Basin drainage. Therefore, the information used completely underestimates peak flood runoff. Instead of 272 cfs, the peak flow can be expected to be in the range of 2,000 cfs. This is according to Dr. McCcy. "The study does not analyze the effects that a backwater curve would have that is immediately upstream of the confluence and is shown in the aerial map that the Milner area residents provided. Dr. McCoy says, "Since the applicant's property is contiguous and surrounded on both sides by the Yampa River and Trout Creek, performing a combined flow analysis may show that the applicant has considerably more property within the 100-year floodplain than stated in the applicant's flood delineation report." We had hopes of getting this report to you earlier, but John Eastman apparently did not have the information that was requested. John told him that the County did not have the information and that it had to be requested from Camilletti's attorney. I understand that this is information routinely requested by reviewing agencies and that Routt County should have aUeady had it on file. When I asked him about this, John's response to me was "the floodplain mapping has been out there for months and you want it now?" This is public information and John had no right to try to keep it from us. If in fact, the County did not have this information, John as your "reviewer" should have been asking for it well before now. As you know and as I reiterated to John, we have been questioning the validity of Camilletti's floodplain report for months. Not being familiar with the process, we did not realize that the County expected the objectors to initiate and pay for a study. No one told us. We thought our objections, and the fact that Camilletti s mapping was incomplete would prompt the County to provide, or at the very least, request an independent study of the 100-year floodplain delineation.