Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ENVIRONMENTS INC. <br />MARCH 26, ZOO 1 <br />l~I <br />PAGE 7 <br />11) and the specific yield of 0.2 when calculating the stream <br />depletion numbers for the well permit for this site. Under <br />the gravel is a layer of shale that seals it from underlying <br />aquifers. <br />24. This was stated because P56G knows they will have to mitigate <br />any impacts cause prevailing hydrologic balance. Attached is <br />a report from Greg Roush with Leonard Rice Consulting Engi- <br />neers addressing this request. Their analysis is very <br />thorough and recommends methods PS&G will follow during <br />dewatering. This report does not include an analysis of <br />installing up gradient recharge facilities. That will be done <br />and submitted to the Division prior to dewatering larger <br />areas. <br />25. As the Division knows, gravel mines have been located in the <br />floodplain of the South Platte River for many years and they <br />have had little impact on the floodplain's ability to carry <br />flood waters. The amount of gravel stored at any one time has <br />a very small footprint in comparison to the amount of hole <br />created by mining. The hole between the natural ground level <br />and the groundwater table on a 50 acres portion of this site <br />could absorb approximately 13,068,000 cu-ft of flood waters <br />that would enter the mine. If on the other hand, one assumes <br />the material stockpiles covered 10 acres of the plant site <br />area and the flood depth was 3.0 feet (flood elevation 4753 <br />feet, Plant Site elevation 4750 feet) then the stockpiles have <br />a 1,306,8000 cu-ft foot print in the floodplain leaving a <br />difference in our favor of 11,761,200 cu-ft. The property <br />would actually retain more water than it does now, and <br />actually reducing the impact a regional flood would have on <br />surrounding land. <br />The reclamation map shows that the internal lake separations <br />will not be elevated above their existing grade and there are <br />no plans to build a berm along the river. No new berms or <br />dikes will be built on the site to impede flood waters <br />entering or leaving it. Weld County requires PS&G to have a <br />Floodplain Permit prior to mining the area that will address <br />these issues. Pickett Engineering is evaluating the effects <br />the floodplain would have on the mining operation and a copy <br />will be submitted when available. This analysis will be the <br />basis for the designing the protection needed on any east-west <br />lateral divider. initially there will be no lateral dividers <br />in the mined area, it isn't until mining ends in the Sharkey's <br />Lake area that armoring would be necessary. <br />26. Using the qualifier came about because of problems I have had <br />with the Division in the past. I was very careful to state at <br />the setbacks along the river are Mining Setbacks so that PS&G <br />would not be responsible for acts of nature (bank erosion) <br />that would be very expensive to mitigate at the time of <br />reclamation. This has happened to me before when it is time <br />