My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE47312
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE47312
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:49:21 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:06:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980183
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/10/1980
Doc Name
BRANNAN SAND & GRAVEL CO M C A 29 JOB 354.1
To
MLRB
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.
/
7
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
iiiiiiiiniuiiiiii <br />999 <br />December 10. 1:'GO <br />Mr. Piark S. Loge <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />;dined Lana Reclamation IIoard <br />1313 Sherman, Room 423 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />_ , <br />-. ~" ~ ;, ;n"~ <br /> <br />RE: ,3rannan Sand & Gravel Cor.!pany <br />DLC.A. 29 <br />Sob No. 354.1 <br />Dear t~,r. Loge: <br />This letter is written i^ response to the memo from your <br />office dated October 30, 1980 to Ann I:odgson of Brannan Sand and <br />Gravel referencing some concerns about tdCA 29. On Page 3 of your <br />letter, Item ~1 under the reference to Exhibit D, we understand <br />the concern is with the sealing o£ the northwestern perimeter of <br />Parcel e of that proposed pit. finder Item #1 the statement is <br />made that thH "sealing is necessary to maintain a ten-foot dif- <br />ference in final water levels in the two pits". Uur report sta- <br />te~ and we further errptrasize that the estimated ten-foot water <br />level differential is a re:rult of the sealing effect of fines <br />deposited along the north and west perimeter of Parcel B. 'Phew <br />depo»its will occur over a pericd of time and the estimated ten- <br />foot differential in water levels between the two Bits will t,e <br />the progressive result especially ;luring the R;ining and to a <br />lesser degree after miring when conditions 1,ave staCilized within. <br />the two proposed pits. Item ~1 cf that ex!!ibit goes cn to ask <br />"why will this area cf shoreline "seal" itself while others will <br />no t7" Our report did not suggest that otsrer areas will not be <br />sealee to some degree, however, the notthwe»tern perimeter of <br />Yarcel l3 will tend to be sealed quicker and to a greater degree <br />due to the ground water flow patterns franc Parcel B toward Yatcel <br />A as shown in the attached drawing. As tt,e figure indicates, the <br />existing ground water flow is generally From the southeast toward <br />the northwest across the entire site and will continue in that <br />general direction once the two pits are constructed. In <br />sdc'.iticn, due to the very narrow stretch of unmined property near <br />the northwestern perin',eter of. Parcel ti, the ground water flow and <br />sealing will be directly proportional to the density of the flow <br />lines between the two parcels as st,own on the attached iiyuce. <br />During mining and construction cf the pir_s a great deal c;f sr:;i- <br />ment will be stirred up and due to the direction c,f flra~ out of <br />the pit, the fines will be concentrated against the west anci <br />nortP: perimeter of Parcel B as shown on th<_~ attact:eu r,ruwing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.