My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR13020
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
3000
>
APPCOR13020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:21 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:37:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981039
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
8/24/1982
Doc Name
Drainage control from Slump @ Pit 2
From
MLRD
To
ROCKCASTLE CO
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.
/
2
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
STATE OF COLORADO giC~ngn D .>MM, r',w ~~~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />D. Moore Pascoe, E.ecut rve Dveaor ~- <br />111INED LAND RECI.AAIA'I'IUN <br />423 Centennial Building. 1373 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />David C. Shelton <br />Director <br />August 24, 1982 <br />Mr. Robert H. Sherman <br />Paine Superintendent <br />The Rockcastle Company <br />P.O. Box AA <br />Hayden, Colorado 81639 <br />RE: Grassy Creek Mine <br />FILE: C-039-81 <br />Dear Mr. Sherman: <br />I have reviewed the 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 ?;ketch or the <br />attached map how water is to be diverted away from 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 towards 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 from portions of the reclaimed area at <br />Pit No. 2 to enter the natural drainage to the northwest of the reclaimed <br />area, and thus bypassing the sediment pond. A second option involved <br />regrading such that a significant portion of the runoff from the Pit No. 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. There area number of potential concerns <br />with the second option, including: <br />-=. -- iii iiiiiiiiii <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.