My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-04-11_REVISION - M1976020
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1976020
>
2002-04-11_REVISION - M1976020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:47:37 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:41:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1976020
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/11/2002
Doc Name
Responses to Objection Letters
From
Greg Lewicki and Assoicates
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
trips per day is for a very short period of time (2 months) and may never be at this level <br />again. Future levels will depend on river mining and sales, which have historically been at <br />a much lower rate. With the restrictions on river mining to 6645' elevation, this traffic <br />cannot increase. Most likely, it will be lowered. <br />The reduction in armoring of the west bank being a "ploy to avoid the lengthy process <br />involving the COE in securing a national permit" is inaccurate. First of all, Lesley <br />McWhirter of the Durango field office of COE reviewed the initial plans for the armoring. <br />After her site visit, she called me and asked me to look at the elimination of the lowest <br />200 feet of armoring since there was a solid grove of cottonwoods at this location and <br />since the embankment was also further away from the river here. I evaluated the photos <br />and video further and concurred that we could eliminate the armoring in this section. <br />Also, we have applied for a permit with the COE for the embankment work and jetty <br />work. We worked intensely with the Corps in developing these plans and they have <br />verbally agreed to them. <br />The landowners upstream cannot be affected by the lake operation, the subject of this <br />review. Neither can they be affected by the river operation, given the limits on mining to <br />6645' elevation. No upstream erosion will occur, since this is the historical grade of the <br />river. <br />Dust pollution should not be a problem since the excavated material will be completely <br />wet and will not be processed on site. Noise pollution is being addressed at the County <br />level. <br />Again, severe bank erosion will not occur, since the river operation is limited to 6645' <br />elevation for extraction. His COE certificate states he is at elevation 6703'. This is flat <br />wrong. See the COE flood hazard maps of Appendix C. <br />In response to the notion that the Wright-McLaughlin Engineers report is misquoted, We <br />state that the upper limit of the study was the Trimble bridge, which is approximately 3 <br />miles south of the Thomas Pit; exactly what was stated in the application. <br />5) Letter from Ronald J. Ritz <br />The stability issue of the embankment has already been addressed in response #l. It will <br />be stable. Regarding the question of contamination from the removal of the sewage <br />treatment ponds, the CDOH is being contacted regarding this issue. We will ask for a site <br />visit from one of their inspectors and we will do whatever is necessary to comply with all <br />requirements. This includes testing and proper disposal of any sewage material, in the <br />unlikely event that any is found. The ponds were pumped out by the landowner a few <br />years ago and we feel there is almost no chance of contamination but we will contact the <br />CDOH anyway. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.