PERMFILE69050 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_, - ~ • .. -- ~. .-~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ TUTTLE APPLEGATE RINDAHL, INC. Consultants for Land and Resource Development III illlllllllllllll 999 May 22, 1987 PdAY Q 2 1987 Mr•. David &er^r•y, Reclamation Specialist ~I~~DLANL Mined Land Reclamation Division i~ECLA~ATIONDiv;~:'~;;~~ 423 Centennial Puilding 1313 6herman Street Denver^, Colorado 80203-'c^273 REo Ready Mixed Concrete Co. - Hronrley Lake - File No. M-H7-049 Dear Dave: We have r^eviewed the comments submitted by Pi 11 DeGr•oot for• the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and can respond to hi=, concer^ns as follows. fur discussior~ is nunrber^ed t., match the items in his letter dated May E, 1967. 1. We concur with Mr. Deer^oot's observation. 2. We believe the location of the proposed channel to be accurate. The information was taken from the Phase H Master Plan For the 6outh Platte River. 3. The gravel mining cr^iter•ia for• Rdams County was used as a basis of the mine plan. 4. a. We assume that this concern is in r•efer•ence t~~ the 400 foot limit of mining before any channel improvements are•+ requir^ed. We concur that no mining will take place within 400 feet of the existing channel without constr~actlnr~ improvements. 4. b. We do not feel that requiring a 100 foot dike width between each lake is necessary. The levy along the South Plattea needs to withstand the full force of the river during a flood, However, when the point is reachetl that overtoppine~ into the lakes occurs, much of the ensr•gy is goinq to be dissipated. R well designed 23 foot dike will probably last almost as long as a 100 foot dike, If there is goinq t~~ be a breach at 25 feet, there will almost certainly be a breach at 100 feet. In additionr the design of these overflow sections in the dikes. is part of final design engineerincl that should not be a part of the permitting process. 11990 Grant StreeL• Suite 410 Denver, Colorado 80233 452-6611.