My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-02-16_REVISION - M2004031
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2004031
>
2016-02-16_REVISION - M2004031
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:33:19 PM
Creation date
2/16/2016 11:33:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004031
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/16/2016
Doc Name
Objection
From
Equity Funding LLC
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM1
Email Name
TOD
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.
/
29
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
Environment, Inc. Page 5 <br /> February 12, 2016 <br /> elevation. This leaves the groundwater approximately 3 . 25 feet <br /> above the average groundwater depth in MW##2 . Point drains work <br /> like wells they only drain area immediately around the pipe, not <br /> below the pipe and do not drain laterally out from the pipe like <br /> a buried horizontal pipe would. They will have NO effect on the <br /> groundwater elevations on the Orr Property and will tend to leave <br /> surface water exposed, also. In addition, in Paragraph 6 they <br /> state the design is capable of handling 4 . 2 feet of surface <br /> water, so has little value to lessening the impacts of the slurry <br /> wall and the relocation of Bull Seep, on the Orr Property. I <br /> presume that they foresee a 4 . 2 foot increase due to normal <br /> seasonal flows in Bull Seep, which I can understand taking into <br /> account the lower, slower and reduced carrying capacity of Bull <br /> Seep as constructed. If this potential increase is due to 100 <br /> year flood event then the entire reservoir would be affected not <br /> just the Bull Seep drainage and no water would be passed thru the <br /> drain pipes . This would also mean that the water could be 7 . 5 <br /> feet above the average groundwater elevations prior to them <br /> installing the slurry wall at a non-flood state for the South <br /> Platte River. <br /> In conclusion, nothing in Aggregate Industries proposed <br /> Amendment leads me to a conclusion that AI plans to minimize the <br /> disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance on the areas <br /> east of their mine as directed by the Mined Land Reclamation <br /> Board. The installation of 2 - 18 inch pipes will have no effect <br /> on the groundwater elevation. While they will partially relieve <br /> the impact create by lowering the grade of Bull Seep and allowing <br /> it to fill with vegetation, but they will not lower the <br /> surrounding ground water elevation to their pre 2005 levels . <br /> Until the groundwater is lowered to id does not get with 24 <br /> inches of the surface it means that the property will not dry so <br /> it is usable like what it was prior to their activities . It will <br /> take some other type of groundwater drain system, placed at an <br /> elevation below ground level, close to the historic groundwater <br /> elevations for there to be a chance of returning the groundwater <br /> level to its approximate historic elevation that existed prior to <br /> construction of the slurry wall or the relocation of the Bull <br /> Seep. The problem along the east side is that by locating Bull <br /> Seep on the side that needs lowering, it tends to load the ground <br /> water above any ground drain system so it either had to be lined <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.