Laserfiche WebLink
~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ ~ <br />MAY 2 4 ~g~ <br />~~CEI~~D ROBERT O. ENGELRE <br />Planning Consultant ~Urat~ Fle <br />MAY 2 6 X999 Grand JunctionodColorado 81501 D(WBjprtorMfrl6r,~ <br />Phone: 970-243-7231 / FAR: 970-245-4674 <br />r .. & Geology iPV~NV ' FIG' <br />UC ~ pF <br />May 20, 1999 <br />Steve S. Shuey <br />Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology <br />84 Tumer Dive, Bldg. F, Suite 101 <br />Durango, CO 81301 <br />FIDE. ALE CppY <br />SITE. 9y_°2. <br />pe,,,,, ~ ~FF`j ; ~. <br />~ ,'ten ~~~/ `rT" <br />Re: Soaring Eagle Gravel Pit, Post-mining Flow through proposals by U.S. C of E. Permit Notice <br />Dear Mr. Shuey, <br />1 am writing this letter in support of Glen Miller's letter on the same subject dated May 20,1999. <br />I feel that the proposed "Flow through" provision risk several miles of existing river habitat for a minimal <br />and uncertain benefit. <br />Specifically ~ diversion of river flow from existing channels would cause damage to those <br />channels and reduce their usefulness to valued wildlife. Such a reduction th the flow of existing channels <br />would contribute to problems similar to those which we are trying to solve in Glen Canyon. <br />The Colorado River has been managed and throttled enough without this proposed diversion. The <br />gravel pit should be allowed to proceed with as little impact as possible to existing Flow pattern. No impact <br />would be preferable. This would requve flood protection at the upper end of the pit which would replicate <br />the present undisturbed flow pattern in the area of the pits. The land should function relative to the river <br />flow as it does now, (at least as much as possible) and not provide a less desirable competing channel. The <br />pit could be left open at the lower end allowing the pond area to function, or as much as possible, as a <br />portion of the river habitat. Outer measures could be taken to keep unwanted fish from the river. <br />t understand the "Flow through" approach has been tried near by without success. th this case the <br />very real risk far outweighs the theoretical benefits. <br />Thank You, <br />Robert O. Engelke <br />