My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL43463
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL43463
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:12:13 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 12:24:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/12/1989
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
JOYCE J NEVILLE
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.
/
5
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
~ Page 4 <br />October 10, 1989 <br />Joyce Neville <br />would be possible. Therefore, the proportion of the <br />contribution of water from this amendment compared to the <br />flow in Williams Canyon should not greatly differ whether <br />the storm is a 5 year or 500 year storm. It still amounts <br />to only a fraction of a percent of the total flow in the <br />basin. <br />As for the sediment, please note that the protection of the <br />existing, natural ground is quite low and there is clear <br />evidence that a considerable amount of sediment load would <br />be derived from the existing surface. Although there might <br />be somewhat of an increase in sediment during very high <br />flows, please recognize that most streamside plants grow <br />there because they are tolerant of sediment burial. In <br />fact, Cottonwood trees require scouring, sediment laden <br />floods to reproduce naturally by seed. Sediment harms <br />plants where it is deposited around plants that are <br />intolerant of sediment, streamside plants evolved in the <br />presence of sedimentation events and, unless it is very <br />severe, are little affected by sediment and can actually be <br />improved, with mild sedimentation, through the introduction <br />of additional nutrients and organic matter. <br />We also wish to inform you that the approximate boundaries <br />of the mining areas have been flagged with "hot pink" <br />flagging placed on trees and bushes. Many of these flags <br />should be visible with binoculars or a spotting telescope <br />from the Cave of the Winds area. We do wish to inform you, <br />however, that the precise boundary has not been surveyed as <br />mining limit boundaries are always considered approximate. <br />During the mining process many adjustments are often <br />necessary to correct for variations in the rock structure. <br />However, along the boundary where the mining and permit <br />boundaries are nearly congruent, the permit boundary and any <br />setbacks are closely observed. It is mainly where the <br />mining and permit boundaries are very widely separated where <br />the most adjustments are made. <br />In the course of flagging the boundary we found a previously <br />unrealized benefit in mining the South Peak first. Because <br />of inaccuracies in the visual line of sight analysis it was <br />noted that by mining the South Peak first (the area least <br />visible from Cave of the Winds), the extent of the mining of <br />the north end of the amendment can be closely controlled. <br />Currently we cannot see through the mountain and are at the <br />mercy of the map accuracy to predict mining limits. But by <br />removing [he mountain we will be able to determine exactly <br />where the mining must stop to avoid being seen from the Cave <br />of the {finds. Previously, mining the north end after the <br />South Peak was just a good way to approach the site. Now, <br />it appears to be mandatory it be mined in that way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.