My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE47175
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE47175
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:49:13 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:04:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004078
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/26/2005
Doc Name
CDOT Objection Letter
From
Joe A. Intermill Jr.
To
DMG
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.
/
4
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
0/28/2005 <br />11:47 970834020404 <br />PAGE 04 <br />JOE INTERMILL <br />PAGE3 <br />EXEIIBTT E-RECLAMATION PLAN: <br />Paragraph (a) of the Reclamation plan shows that 4 water storage ponds are proposed, <br />ranging in size from 23 acres to 94 acres. They total approximately 277 acres of surface <br />area. Reclamation plan, map 6, shows two ponds, one at 86,4 acres and one at 175 acres. <br />There is also an area labeled 19.3 acre wetland/pond area . Which is correct, the oarrarive <br />or the map? Our concern is with the amoum of wave action erosion that can be created by <br />wind blowing overl/2f mile of open water. <br />We are also concerned by the premise of mining the claystone and utilizing it as the <br />material for the clay lining in the ponds..Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Reiner have arranged for us to <br />view a similar operation next week at a nearby location. <br />It is understood that mining and reclamation schedules are difEcult to establish considering <br />that the operation is driven by market demand, weather, and mrmerous other factors that <br />the operator is unable to control. However, suer reviewing pertinent supplemental data <br />submitted with the easement information, the Reclamation Plan, the lvfining Plan, and the <br />various maps, it appears that the ] :2 slopes between the buffer area and the excavated area <br />could stand untreated for somewhere between 2 and 9-1 /2 years before the clay lining is <br />completed. The only reason this is of concern to CDOT is that steep slopes , leR for an <br />extended period o£time tend to erode and cave back into the adjacerrt material. This <br />situation could potentially reduce the width of the natural buffer area between the pond <br />and the CDOT ROW. Also, are there drainage trenches along the toe of the slopes <br />paralleling HWY 85? If so, since these western pods are scheduled to be mined earlier, <br />will the slopes be left unlined until completion of excavation in the area so as not to <br />disrupt the drainage operation? <br />Ts there a provision for some type of keying operation to help bond the clay liner to the <br />claystone bedrock, and prevent the intrusion of water between the liner aad the bedrock? <br />Tt is assumed that the liner material will be placed in horizontal lifts with some type of <br />keying or benching into the adjacent alluvial sand and gravel. <br />1. Is there a maximum loose or compacted lift thickness? <br />2. What type of wmpacxion equipmem will be used? <br />3. Will moistureldensitytests be required on the compacted liner, and if so at <br />what frequency? <br />The slope stability calculations were submitted to the CDOT Geotechnical Unit for their <br />review and comments. We anticipate their report early this week. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.