Laserfiche WebLink
M=D—CONT=NENT RESOURCES � 2 NC _ <br /> 818 Colorado Ave. <br /> P.O. Box 1298 <br /> Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 <br /> September 12, 1991 <br /> Dan Mathews <br /> Mined Land Reclamation Division <br /> 1313 Sherman <br /> Room 215 <br /> Denver, CO 80209 <br /> RE: Nov C-91-008. <br /> Dear Mr. Mathews: <br /> In the notice of violation (C-91-008) which you wrote July 25, <br /> 1991, you specified certain steps for abatement, which include <br /> replacement of existing culverts identified as C-4 and C-5, and <br /> installation or"other measures as necessary" of culverts designated <br /> on map II-B-7 Att. 2 as C-1N and C-2N. <br /> Mid-Continent is proceeding with replacement of culverts C-4 and <br /> C-5. However, as to the design which indicates installation of <br /> culverts C-1N and C-2N, we believe the sites chosen are impractical <br /> and undesirable for culverts, and for that reason, request to amend <br /> the design so as to remove reference to C-1N and C-2N. <br /> Culvert C-2N is referenced in the M-K report (Vol. 3 App. II-B-7 <br /> Att. 2, page 6) as being located "at station 136+00 and is an <br /> extension of an existing 24 in. diameter culvert at the curve" <br /> (culvert C-7) . <br /> The design (Map II-B-7 Att. 2) indicates culvert C-7 at station <br /> 139+20 is a 24" culvert, while C-2N at station 136+00 is 18" . The <br /> map says "construct conveyance ditch between culverts. " <br /> Lew Thompson has gone to the area indicated, and finds that the <br /> location designated for the proposed Culvert C-2N is uphill from <br /> culvert C-7, and that the road cut at this point is in bedrock. <br /> We conclude that this design is not feasible to implement because <br /> 1) it seems inadvisable to install an 18" culvert to receive flows <br /> from a 24" culvert; 2) even with a larger culvert, flows from C-7 <br /> will not reach the proposed culvert C-2N because it's upslope; 3) <br />