Laserfiche WebLink
::- . <br />:._ <br />W~6D~. <br />COLORADO <br />January 6, 1981 <br />~ - ` III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />DEPARTMENT OFENGINEERING <br />750 <br />PHONE (303) 3564000 EXTJfD1X <br />P.O. BOX )68 <br />.y GREELEV, COLORADO 80631 <br />. i~'Jl <br />. ;,;,t ,~ a.~~AT~ora <br />--- •~~~ <br />Department of the Army <br />Omaha District <br />Corps of Engineers <br />6014 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse <br />Omaha, Nebraska 68102 <br />Attention: Regulatory Functions Branch <br />Mr. Ralph J. Miller, Chief <br />RE: Army Permit Number CO 286 OXT 2 002639 <br />Dear Mr. rliller: <br />Your letter of December 11, 1980, forwarded copies of letters from the <br />U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife <br />regarding our application for a 404 Permit on the St. Drain Creek adjacent <br />to the Hokestra Gravel Pit. <br />The Fish and Wildlife Service letter of Decemeber 4, 1980, states that the <br />County's action of channelization of the stream is destructive to fish and <br />wildlife values. It is emphasized here that the County's application for <br />rebuilding and placement of rip-rap along the banl:is merely to. repair. and <br />preserve the bank, which was damaged by the flood of May, 1980. The purpose <br />of the project is to repair natural damage, not to channelize the creek. <br />The channelization of the river in this location was done before the County <br />began operations in this gravel pit. Moreover, our recently approved <br />application fora mining oermit by the State of Colorado does contain a <br />reclamation plan, which provides for the return of the area to wildlife. <br />The County is thus not only protecting its own property as any prudent <br />ot•mer would, but is also taking into full account the environmental consid- <br />erations by providing a reclamation plan. We therefore see no valid reason <br />why our application for protection of the bank (which is a part of the over- <br />all plan) should not be approved. <br />The letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, dated December 3, 1980, <br />indicates an objection to the use of concrete rubble for rip-rap along the <br />bank and suggests that only clean rock be used. While r.laan rock maybe <br />more suitable for bank stablization from an environmental stand-point'it <br />is also considerable more expensive. It could cost up to 510.00/per ton to <br />import this type of material from the foothills 20 miles to the west. Con- <br />crete rip-rap has been a standard for river bank stablization for years along <br />County and State bridges. We see no justification for requiring the County <br />