My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE41537
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE41537
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:44:12 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 10:48:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1987049
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/11/1987
From
URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
To
MLRD
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.
/
3
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
<br />J <br />~J 5 <br />The mining and reclamation plans fall short of the Master Plan <br />and the gravel mining criteria in the following areas: <br />J/ a. The gravel mining criteria allow for a 100 foot set back <br />from top of bank whenever sufficient spillways are <br />provided connecting the pits with the channel and with <br />each other. There are locations on the mining plan where <br />the 100 foot distance has been taken from the top of the <br />proposed channel bank when it should have been taken from <br />*..he top of the existing channel bank. In other words the <br />more restrictive conditions should apply, <br />~/ b. The le ies b tween lakes should also have a minimum top <br />width f 100 eet. <br />/~ c. The Mining and Reclamation Plans show a number of "side <br />channel depressions" which are apparently meant to be the <br />spillways called for in the gravel mining criteria. No <br />information was provided in the application report to <br />justify the number or location of these spillways. <br />Neither did the report show any typical details such as <br />erosion protection and dimensions. <br />~jo•V' <br />/~ <br />We would like to see flood control maintenance access <br />provisions in the form of easements ,for flood control <br />maintenance access along the 100 foot top width of the berm <br />paralle]ing the river, This would assure us of the long term <br />maintenance access we feel we need in the event that the <br />Brighton owned wildlife preserve does not develop for some <br />reason. <br />Third Creek presents a major problem to this site, and we <br />don't feel that it was adequately addressed in the permit <br />application. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District <br />completed a flood hazard area delineation study, which <br />included Third Creek, in February, 1976. It now appears that <br />the discharges we used at that time may be low because of the <br />much greater amount of development expected in the upper part <br />of the basin as a result of the new Denver airport and the <br />urbanization it will attract. We are presently circulating a <br />contract with the affected local governments for a hydrology <br />analysis of Irondale Gulch and First, Second and Third Creeks. <br />That study will give us a better idea of where we stand with <br />current projected land use in the drainage basin. <br />of about 30.7 square miles. Major consideration must be given <br />to how the water from that large of a basin wil] be able to <br />enter and leave the lakes without causing serious damage. <br />Regardless of the land use projections used for the Third <br />Creek drainage basin, the fact remains that this proposed <br />gravel mining operation sits at the mouth of a drainage basin <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.