My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL55044
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL55044
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:40:08 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:01:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
6/18/1985
Doc Name
RESPONSES TO ADEQUACY LETTER DATED MAY 6 1985 CASTLE CONCRETE SAND PIT YOUR FN M-77-213
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
MLR
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.
/
10
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
• ge 3 <br />June 18, 1985 <br />Sand Pit <br />C. Farrell <br />J Item b - It appears that there is a misunderstanding <br />regarding the relocation of the ditch next to the Columbine Industial <br />land. The ditch will not be relocated in that area. IC will remain in <br />its current location. However, it will be concrete lined in that area. <br />Item 3: Please provide the agreement between Castle Concrete Comapny <br />and the Colorado Division of Highways concerning the proposed "boring" <br />24 feet beneath Academy Boulevard. <br />RESPONSE: The approval from the Colorado Division of Highways to <br />.~ bore under Academy Boulevard is still in the process of negotiation and <br />issuance. We will agree to having the approval of this amendment <br />contingent upon the issuance of this approval to bore under Academy. <br />Item 4: You stated the access road relocation further south of its <br />present location will be accomplished by backfilling the north bank <br />below the roadway. It seems backfilling the south slope of the roadway <br />would facilitate the road relocation further south. Please clarify. <br />RESPONSE: It appears to us <br />but using different terminology. By <br />meant the north slope of the sand pit <br />south slope of the existing roadway. <br />page 2 of Exhibit D in their entirity <br />is meant. <br />that we are saying the same thing, <br />'north bank below the roadway" is <br />which is the same thing as the <br />If you read paragraphs 2 and 3 on <br />we think you will understand what <br />Item 5: What is the proposed final depth of excavation? The <br />original plan and Technical Revision #2 totaled an excavation depth of <br />95' of sand + 15' of gravel (110 feet). <br />RESPONSE: Some attempts were made to excavate the gravel <br />layer under the sand, but at this point it does not appear to be <br />actually feasible due to a fluctuating water table in this area. <br />Therefore, the current depth is the final depth. Looked at another way, <br />The existing topographic line on the cross-sections shows both the <br />existing and the final depths at various locations. <br />11 Actually, no specific depth figure can be given as it really <br />Jdepends upon where one measures it. In some places, the excavation is <br />only about 65 feet deep while in others it is closer to 90 or 95 feet. <br />To us, the actual depth of excavation is of little importance as the <br />depth of possible mining is controlled by the water table. If <br />excavation goes too deep the pit bottom becomes "mushy" and equipment <br />tends to get stuck. Therefore, we always try to stay several feet above <br />the water table. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.