FLOOD07356

• County: Alamosa
• Community: Alamosa County
• Stream Name: Rio Grande River
• Basin: Rio Grande
• Title: Comments for Phase I Preliminary Design of Rio Grande Levee System
• Date: 5/6/1986
• Prepared For: Alamosa County
• Prepared By: Muller Engineering Company, Inc.
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Project

May 6, 1986

Z~?,b

MULLER ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
7000 WEST FOURTEENTH AVENUE
LAKEWOOD, COIDRADO 80215
[phone]

Mr. Terry Haugen
Director of Public Works
City of Alamosa
P.O. 80x 419
Alamosa, Colorado 81101

$~~
);/}J-JiZ}} ,.
/'.'1 ,~.1 . ("
I ' . . ,] / r(
....>I( '.. - ( (1)-"'
........,_ . I. '/ "", ~
(. , r . ,/('v<. -
r 0,>-, ,- . :;J ',.."
-O;<'~1i:1~ ...~., WI., /;".I
'rl/^'I:-~?~11.
"J::'r_ .;,1'....., /
'j,:, /i;r-.
"A.; ~r
41'?)

RE: REVIEW COMMENTS FOR PHASE I PRELIMINARY DESIGN
OF RIO GRANDE LEVEE SYSTEM
MEC Project No. 8601

Dear Terry:

This letter provides the City with an item by item response to review
comments recei ved from the City/County, Colorado Water Conservati on
Board (CWC8), and the Albuquerque District of the United State Army
Corps of Engineers (COE). Copies of the review comments are enclosed,
and the responses follow the comments item by item.

I
City/County COminents (Letter dated March 18, 1986)

Geotechnical Report - The confusion about the location of the
test holes is based on Chen & Associates' statement that the
ho 1 es were pl aced lid i rect 1 y on the 1 evee" . Thi s statement
meant that the hol es were dri 11 ed on manmade fi 11, not nec-
essarily on the crest of the levee. The confusion would not
have occurred if we had supplied detailed plan maps at the
time of report submittal showing the precise hole locations.
Chen & Associates feels there was enough information from the
test holes on which to base their recommendations. They have
proposed no changes of the recommendations in their report.

Preliminary Design Phase I Improvements -

1. The manhole on Gretchen Clark's property will be converted to
an emergency pump vault.

2. Information on the Westside Ditch diversion embankment was not
included in the Phase I report as no construction work on the
embankment is pl anned as a part of Phase 1. However. the
proposed 1 evee improvements anti ci pate the embankment owner
may rebuild the diversion to a maximum elevation of 7537. The
vegetation should be removed for a 200-foot long section of
the diversion just north of the spillway openings. This will
match the failure conditions used in the hydraulic
computations.

3.

The details of the freeboard levee
precisely in the preliminary design
section's small height (3').

were not tied down
because of that 1 evee

WATER RESOURCES' TRANSPORTATION' CIVIL ENGINEERING