My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1996-08-21_REVISION - M1981302 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981302
>
1996-08-21_REVISION - M1981302 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2022 3:51:02 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:07:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981302
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/21/1996
Doc Name
CONCERNS REGARDING THE DEEPE FARM PIT FN M-81-302 AND THE TURNPIKE PIT FN M-78-064
From
DMG
To
NATIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES INC
Type & Sequence
AM2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Jane E. Bunin, PhD <br /> October 21, 1996-Response <br /> Page 4 <br /> area is developed after reclamation and permit release, the Board <br /> and Division will have no control over later activities . <br /> If the commenter is referring to planned future channel or <br /> embankment construction within the area disturbed by mining, <br /> plans for such activities must be submitted to the Division for <br /> permit revision review and Board approval, and will be evaluated <br /> at the time of the submittal . (Please note that the Division is <br /> staff to the Board and is authorized to approve certain <br /> permitting actions where there are no objecting parties . ) <br /> Additional Citizens Concerns Regarding the Channel and Dike - <br /> Concern - "Western Mobile is currently creating a channel within <br /> the Deepe Pit quarry and adding height to the levee around the <br /> east side of the pit. The County has not permitted the current <br /> dike construction, I believe that the current dike construction <br /> is in violation of MLR Policy. Second, a recent study by Love <br /> and Associates shows that implementation of the 1989 reclamation <br /> plan will result in flooding of the City of Boulder' s Keewaydin <br /> neighborhood. There needs to be an assessment of flood hazard <br /> implications of the final reclamation grading plan by the City, <br /> the County, Urban Drainage, Colorado Water Conservation Board and <br /> FEMA. Public health and safety are at issue. <br /> Response <br /> The Division has contacted Curt Parker, water resources engineer <br /> for Boulder County. Mr. Parker informed the Division that a <br /> flood plain permit from the county for this activity is not <br /> required. Based on the Division' s inspections of July 29 and <br /> August 16, 1996 the grading work done to date is in conformance <br /> with the reclamation plan. <br /> Flatiron Sand and Gravel Company has submitted and the Division <br /> has approved a technical revision (T.R. ) for the Turnpike Pit for <br /> changes to the drainage channel in this permit area - T. R. 1 <br /> submitted March 4 , 1996 and approved April 26, 1996 . The <br /> Division did not identify a health or safety issue . Since the <br /> Division did not receive copies of the "Love" studies at the time <br /> of our review, that study was not considered by the Division. <br /> After examining the newspaper article it appears that flooding of <br /> the Flatiron property could be reduced by building a FEMA <br /> certified berm but such a construction is not required by DMG for <br /> the approved final land use . It is not apparent from the article <br /> that the building of the proposed channel would increase the <br /> flood potential over the no channel or premine conditions . The <br /> article also did not show what impact, if any, the proposed <br /> channel would have on the Keewaydin Meadows area . If you have <br /> any evidence that the proposed channel would have an adverse <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.