Laserfiche WebLink
.°,= <br />/I <br />- - --._ <br />August 24, 1982 <br />Mr. Robert H. Sherman <br />Afine Superintendent <br />The Rockcastle Company <br />P.O. IIox AA <br />Hayden, Colorado 81639 <br /> III I IIIIIIIIIIIIiII <br />srorr or cn~oar,rJO ~„r,,:.~~ ~~~~ :...., ~~,,..,,.,,~ <br />G EPART tdENT OF NATl1R AL RE$Ol1RQF.5 <br />n r.lnni~• P,, ~,u v, 1 -rrutwc 1)i. r.-~m <br />1.1i1~`LU LAND RL(;L:1M11:1'i'tU\ <br />423 Centennial Builtlin9, 1313 Sherman Slre et <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303)~8G6-3567 <br />David C. Shelton <br />Director <br />RE: Grassy Creek Kline <br />FILE: C-039-8), <br />Dear Mr. Sherman: <br />I have reviewed tiTe cross sectional sketch of the proposed backfill <br />configuration of the slump at the Pit No. 2 reclaimed area, and it appears <br />to be satisfactory. However, it is not apparent from the sketch or the <br />attached map lm w water is to be diverted away Crom the slump area. <br />As we discussed on site shortly after the slump occurred, the collection <br />ditch along the northern perimeter of the Pit No. 2 reclaimed area should <br />be backfilled and vegetated in order to avoid directing water Cowards the <br />slump. Two alternatives for handling runoff from the reclaimed area at <br />Pit No. 2 were discussed at that time. One option being considered was <br />Final grading to allow runoff Erom portions of the reclaimed area at <br />Pit No. 2 to enter the natural dra iaage to the northwest of Che reclaim ed <br />area, and thus bypassing the sediment pond. A second option involved <br />regrading such that a significant portion of the runoEE from the Pit i'o. 2 <br />reclaimed area would be routed by means of a vegetated Swale through the <br />Pit No. 3 reclaimed area to the existing collection ditch along the northern <br />perimeter of the Pit No. 3 area. 'f here are a number oC poten[ial conr_erns <br />Taith the second option, including: <br />