My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-02-07_REVISION - M1977211 (14)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977211
>
2020-02-07_REVISION - M1977211 (14)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:44:29 PM
Creation date
2/10/2020 8:17:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977211
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/7/2020
Doc Name Note
Exponent Reort
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Continental Materials Corp.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM4
Email Name
TC1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2144
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
1100318 R0T0 0811 JRW1 11 <br />aforementioned Manitou Formation clay zones were removed prior to mining of Area H and did <br />not cause or contribute to the Pikeview Landslide. <br />With respect to the dimensions of Area H, the 1994 Amendment specifies that completed <br />portions of the excavation would be backfilled as quarrying proceeded elsewhere. This <br />methodology was prescribed for several reasons, including mitigating slope instability. The <br />report provides the following reasons for the backfilling:23 <br /> “The amount of waste stored on site for use in backfilling must be limited. <br />Room available for waste storage is limited and therefore prompt backfilling <br />must be done to avoid creating ‘mountains’ of waste.” <br /> “Backfilling with waste will be needed to establish access roads in and out of <br />the Hole. Thus, the need to easily remove the mined rock requires that <br />backfilling be done and this will help limit the dimensions of the Hole that <br />will be open at any one time.” <br /> “It is not expected that any more than ¼ of the total length of the west wall of <br />the Hole will be unsupported by backfill (or unmined rock) at any one time. <br />Thus, any large scale instability that might occur would be limited in scope <br />simply because most of the west wall will either be supported by backfill or <br />by native rock yet to be mined.” <br /> “To further support the wall, the backfill will be replaced at an angle across <br />the Hole. Angled backfilling behind the mining will proceed as the Hole is <br />excavated to the south. This pattern is also advantageous for access as it <br />reduces the steepness of the road into the Hole.” <br />In light of the above considerations, the 1994 Amendment concludes that “although the stability <br />of the Hole is certainly of concern, the sequence of mining removes much of the stability <br />problem that could occur above the Hole and this will make the Hole much more stable,”24 and <br />“it does not appear that instability of the mountainside will be created by excavating the Hole, <br /> <br />23 Application for Permit Amendment Pikeview Quarry, Permit Number M-77-211, Received by Colorado <br />Division of Minerals and Geology on June 2, 1994, page 23-24 (Appendix 12) <br />24 Application for Permit Amendment Pikeview Quarry, Permit Number M-77-211, Received by Colorado <br />Division of Minerals and Geology on June 2, 1994, page 24 (Appendix 12)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.