My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-07-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1999025
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Minerals
>
M1999025
>
2008-07-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1999025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:34:57 PM
Creation date
8/5/2008 2:24:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999025
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
7/25/2008
Doc Name
Current conceptual design
From
Western Water & Land, Inc.
To
DRMS
Email Name
THM
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.
/
10
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
Page 2 <br />July 22, 2008 <br />3. A monitoring plan will be developed to monitor (1) the rate at which the gravel pit is filling in <br />with river sediment, (2) the potential occurrence of headcutting in the Colorado River upstream <br />of the inlet (measurements and photographic documentation), and (3) annual inspection of the <br />inlet structure. <br />Glen Miller Comments: <br />Mr. Miller cited several concerns with a flow-through pit design in a letter to the FWS in May of 1999. <br />Mr. Miller's concerns include the following: <br />1. Small floods may build-up sediment in the pit lake and later large floods may scour and re- <br />entrain this fine sediment. A given flood event could cause a "slug" of suspended sediment to <br />enter the downstream channel of the Colorado River. <br />2. Larger, high velocity flood events will create a "plunge" pool 100 ft wide and 10 to 15 ft deep <br />on the downstream side of the inlet structure. <br />3. A moderate-to-large flood would discharge several 1,000 cubic ft per second (cfs) over the <br />inlet into the pit. "Such flows would likely destroy the structure, allowing rapid down-cutting <br />to the level of the riverbed, or lower." Such flows would divert most of the river flow through <br />the pit, and result in very low flow or no-flow in the "island" area. <br />4. Head cutting in the main channel would progress upstream from inlet which could result in <br />drying-up of some sloughs or backwaters in the Walter Walker Wildlife Area. <br />5. Past experiments with similar inflow structures at the Walter Walker Wildlife Area and an old <br />pit near 30 Road failed, in ways similar to those described above. <br />6. Any diversion of flood waters would reduce the river stage at flood peaks and result in above <br />normal deposition of sediment in the downstream "island" area, thus altering the existing <br />channel/slough/backwater system. <br />7. The project itself would increase the risk of diverting the main river, regardless of the final <br />state of the pit because pit operations are removing the more resistant coarse materials in the <br />floodplain area. <br />ACE 404 Permit: <br />1. The permittee shall maintain a minimum of 150 ft buffer between the Colorado River and the <br />excavation boundary of the gravel pit at all times. <br />2. The permittee will maintain the gravel pit as deemed necessary by the Corps of Engineers to <br />prevent the pit from becoming the main channel of the Colorado River. <br />3. A written response from a certified hydrologist addressing the concerns of Mr. Glen A. <br />Miller's letter to Ms. Sue Moyer of the FWS dated May 20, 1999, shall accompany the final <br />design. <br />July 15 Meeting Summary <br />On July 15, 2008, a meeting was held by Grand Junction Pipe to discuss the conceptual design and to <br />resolve the intention of key permit elements. Meeting attendees included Mr. Ed Settle and Mr. Ron
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.