My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL48009
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL48009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:23:40 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 4:01:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977572
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
5/4/1987
Doc Name
REVIEW COMMENTS APPLICATION CO-0YT-0501
From
DEPT OF HWYS
To
US ARMY CORP
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.
/
3
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
_ ~ ~~ <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DEPARTMENT Of NIGNWAYS <br />~eaa ~ <br />D17~1IC~ 11 't~ ~~t <br />405 Eria - P.O. Box 536 `~~ .-~~`{ <br />PueOlo. Colorado 81002 ••?•~~~:./~'^'p~ <br />130.7) 5~~-8286 ~„~o-J• <br />April 28, 1987 <br />Mr. Bill Bisers~art, General l~nager <br />Valco, Inc. <br />P.O. Box 591 <br />Lamar, CO 81052 <br />Dear Mr. Eiserlmen: <br />We have evaluated yaa latest proposal to continue Wining in the prktlnaea <br />River, sa presented to us on April 3, 1987 and described in your Secl.ion <br />404 Permit Application, 00-0YT-0501. We object to that proposal and to <br />the continuation of mining adjacent to the bridges on State Highway 50, <br />Past as well as ctiu7:ent mining practices at this locatim present a high <br />risk to the bridges at both moderate and large flood flows. 'ibis is <br />unacceptable. Had We been given an opportunity to cent on previous <br />applications filed with the Mined lard Reclamation Board or the U.3. Ar>~y <br />Corps of Engineers, we would have strenuously objected to ar>,y mining Which <br />would encroach into the charutel beyond the existing bridge abutments. We <br />have discussed this concern with you en several occasions, std this <br />remains a serious concern. <br />We also believe that the proposed realignment of the p~rese~t river chhenrtel <br />significantly increases risk to the bridges. Your plan does not <br />adequately mitigate that risk for the following reasons: <br />1. The top elevation of 3608 for the rubble Dore is too high and <br />should be lowered. <br />2. The bottom elevation of 3598 is not low enough to prevent <br />unde~;~;*~ during en overtopping flow. Qa experier-ce indicated that <br />plunge pool erosion may occla' down to elevation 3580 or even lower. <br />3. No means were provided to mitigate hesdcutting from the ends Df <br />the rabble core. <br />4. the proposed car>ICrete rubble core held together with cement slurry <br />would not form a moralithic mBas using normal canstnvetion praeti~xa. <br />We believe that the ca>,crete chunks will break loose causing core <br />failure during an overtopping flaw. <br />5. hoed distributions of the forces an the rubble core Were not <br />provided to checlr for overturning. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.