My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-06-29_PERMIT FILE - M2020007 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2020007
>
2020-06-29_PERMIT FILE - M2020007 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/8/2025 3:35:04 AM
Creation date
6/30/2020 10:32:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2020007
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
6/29/2020
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response #3
From
Environment, Inc.
To
DRMS
Email Name
ECS
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.
/
52
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
Epvi* roipMejpt, <br /> LARRY E.O'BRIAN 7985 VANCE DRIVE,SUITE 205A <br /> FOUNDER ARVADA,COLORADO 80003 <br /> STEVAN L.O'BRIAN 303-423-7297 <br /> PRESIDENT FAX 303423-7599 <br /> June 25, 2020 RECEIVE® <br /> JUN 2 9 2020 <br /> Mr. Eric Scott <br /> Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety DIVIISSION OF RECLAYAT ON <br /> ND SAFETY <br /> 1313 Sherman St., #215 <br /> Denver, CO 80215 <br /> Dear Eric; <br /> RE: L.G. Everist, Inc. <br /> Ragsdale Reservoirs, Permit # M-2020-007 <br /> Adequacy Response #3 <br /> On behalf of our client L.G. Everist, Inc., I will respond to your second adequacy review <br /> letter dated May 14, 2020, in the order and number format presented in that document. <br /> EXHIBIT E -Reclamation Plan (Rule 6.4.5): <br /> DRMS has reviewed the armoring plan proposed for the riverside slopes of Phases 1 and 2, and <br /> will require some additional clarification. How was the D50 size of 12-24 inches for the concrete <br /> riprap proposed was arrived at? <br /> Please demonstrate that these dimensions meet the Factor of Safety Requirement of 1.25 given in <br /> Section 2.4.1 of the UDFCD guidance. (Or as your 9th grade algebra teacher would say - "show <br /> your work") <br /> Attached is the revised Armoring Plan with the calculations showing that the <br /> 5F for the Reservoir bank armoring is 1.26 so is greater then the 1.25 <br /> recommended. We revised the armoring size from 12 to 24 inches to be 9 to <br /> 15 inches, averaging 12 inches and have revised the text to reflect this <br /> In addition, if the permittee wishes to maintain a top width of no less than 100 feet for the lateral <br /> berm between Phases I and 2, both sides of that lateral berm will also need to be armored in the <br /> same fashion proposed for the riverside pit walls to provide adequate protection for the gas/oil <br /> line(s) it contains in the event it is overtopped by flood event. Please acknowledge. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.