The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 CorrespondencePage 1 of 2 Fred Jarman From: Michael Erion [MErion@resource-eng.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:05 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Rifle review Fred: I recommend that the Floodway line be placed according to the definition of the Floodway and the technical analysis. Therefore, I would recommend a floodway line along the north bank of the river as suuguested by the City's consultant for the CLOMR (post Scott Pit scenario) provided that Peggy believes this is consistent with the definition and is supported by the model output. Michael Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile www.resource-eng.com RESOURCE The information contained in this e-mail is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and delete the original message from your system. Thank You. From: Fred Jarman [mailto:fredjarman@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 7:34 AM To: Michael Erion Subject: FW: Rifle review Michael, I will rely on your judgment on this. Thanks From: Bailey, Peggy [mailto:Peggy.Bailey@tetratech.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 6:23 PM To: Fred Jarman; Michael Erion Subject: Rifle review Fred and Michael, I reran the floodway to model Rifle's recommended floodway, per their letter emailed today. The rise is all less than one foot so we could do this. Keep in mind, however, that the recommended floodway line from Rifle encroaches further toward the river than that shown on the FEMA/Corps maps. This floodway line would result in an additional 15 acres or so (just using my scale), that could be developed that can not now because of the current effective floodway line (FEMA/Corps). I did not update the existing conditions model but I believe the additional encroachment works (that is the increase remains less than one foot) because of the construction of the pits. I superimposed the Corps/FEMA floodway on Jeff's drawing so you could see what I am talking about (see attached). The hydraulics model is showing that either floodway works. Not sure if this is a big deal to you but 8/5/2007 Page 2 of 2 thought 1 would let you know. I would look to you all for direction on what to use, but in either case I do not think it is a problem for completing the CLOMR. Give me a calI or send an emaU to et me know what you think. Thanks Peggy Bailey|Sr Project Manager Main: ono.4on.soe*iFAX: aru.wnn.^o7o| peggybailey@tetratech.com Tetra Tech 410 South French Stree|P.O.Box 1O59|Breckenridge, DJ8u4o4|www.tetmteuh.uom PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential andlor inside information. Any thstribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intencied recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this rnessage and then delete it from your system. 8/5/2007 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS a SURVEYORS August 2,2007 Mr. Fred Jarman, Planner 108 8th Street, 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 1 8 W. 6TH, SUITE 200 GLENNOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945-1004 FX: 970-945-5948 P.O. Box 2155 ASPEN, Co 81612 970-925-6727 FX: 970-925-4157 B 1r� P.O. BOX 3088 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 970-349-5355 FX: 970-349-5358 Via Email: fredjarman@garfield-county.com Via: Hard Copy RE: Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision Colorado River Scott Pit, Submittal Review, City of Rifle, Colorado Dear Fred: First, let me take this opportunity to thank you and the Garfield County Building and Planning Department for having given the City of Rifle the opportunity to provide a review of the request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision prepared by Tetra Tech of Breckenridge, Colorado for United Companies of Grand Junction, Colorado at the proposed Scott Pit located along the Colorado River east of Rifle, Colorado. As the City is an immediate adjacent property owner, the City's interests are certainly of concern as related to the proposed Conditional Letter of Map Revision and the proposed floodway line re -delineation as proposed by the intended mining activities. Please note, as the Conditional Letter of Map Revision is part and partial to a prior land use application under review by the City of Rifle and Garfield County for proposed gravel pit mining activity, we are limiting our review comments to that specific map revision request. In order to conduct our review, we have been provided a copy of the May 2007, report prepared by Tetra Tech of which contained hydraulic modeling results, mapping and a written narrative of the study with conclusions made therein. As previously mentioned, Tetra Tech of Breckenridge, Colorado prepared the report dated May 2007. Relative to the City's review please note the following comments: 1. Please find attached a variety of maps which we have secured from various sources noted as follows: a. Four drawing sheets (C-39 to C-42) which were the work maps from the original flood plain study and tributaries as preformed by the US Army Corp of Engineers for Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board in 1986-1987. These maps more clearly define the orginial delineation of flood plain and I:\1999\99055A\287\corresp\20070726 Ltr to Fred Jarman.doc SCHMUESER ! GORDON MEYER ENGINEERSSURVEYORS Mr. Fred Jarman Page 2 of 3 8/2/2007 floodway lines on the Colorado River. Further, the maps were intended to be utilized in the Flood Insurance Study for Garfield County, however, funding constraints halted further adoption of this mapping into the Flood Insurance Study for Garfield County. Portions of this mapping were adopted in the City of Rifle Flood Insurance Study. b. An exhibit prepared by ourselves, which utilized Sheet (C-39 to C-42) and created a single map with the flood way lines and flood plain lines highlighted. On this mapping, please note the locations of the flood plain/floodway lines as originally intended by the US Army Corp. of Engineers Study. c. A reproduction of map C-2 from the Tetra Tech Study of 2007, which identifies "in hand drawn form" the suggested locations of the floodway, lines for the Colorado River by the City of Rifle. 2. With the aforementioned mapping, please note the original US Army Corp of Engineers Flood Plain Study did not identify areas north of the north channel bank of the Colorado River as being completely in the floodway of the Colorado River. In fact, the furthest north representation of floodway in the Corp of Engineers Study was represented by the south edge of the cross hatched area west of cross section 6 as noted on Sheet C-2 on the Tetra Tech Study. In the Tetra Tech study, the proposed CLOMR floodway line locations significantly encumber the City's property as well as the upstream properties by removing only those areas from the floodway, which can be generally described as dikes around the current ponds from past mining activities. It would be the City's recommendation that floodway model be reran to reflect the floodway line as described in Exhibit C in Item 1 above. The purpose of this recommendation is that in accordance to the report and comparisons of existing flood plain elevations compared to future flood plain elevations, it is likely that those areas north of the Colorado River north channel bank will not be subjected to flooding as a result of the mining activity (if approved). Therefore, from a flood insurance standpoint, these areas should not be located in a mapped floodway of the Colorado River. 3. We previously noted that our comments are limited to the Conditional Letter of Map Revision review. However, we note on page 5 of the Tetra Tech report, a statement indicating that the 100 ft buffer, in addition to the fact the river does not have an outside bend in the study area makes it unlikely that pit capture will occur. It will be the City's position that in order to support the CLOMR from a technical standpoint, the City would want to assure physical mitigation techniques are in place that will provide the City confidence that no pit capture will occur as a result of the mining activities proposed with this project. I:\1999\99055A\287\corresp\20070726 Ltr to Fred Jarman.doc SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS E. SURVEYORS Mr. Fred Jarman Page 2 of 3 8/2/2007 Upon your receipt and review, if you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER Jefferey S. Simonson, P.E., C. F. M. JSS/bg— Cc: Peggy, Bailey, Tetratech Jim Neu, Leavenworth and Karp Bill Sappington, Public Works Director Dick Deussen, Public Works Engineer Charlie Stevens, Utilities Director Matt Sturgeon, Assistant City Manager Michael Erion, Resource Engineering Via Email: Peggy.Bailey@tetratech.com Via Email:jsn@lklawfirm.com Via Email: bsappington@rifleco.org Via Email: ddeussen@rifleco.org Via Email: cstevens@rifleco.org Via Email: msturgeon@rifleco.org Via Email: merion@resources-eng.com I:\1999\99055A\287\corresp\20070726 Ltr to Fred Jarman.doc K! eY N z O