My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE47335
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE47335
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:49:22 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:06:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2006078
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/13/2006
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response #2
From
Hart Environmental
To
DRMS
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.
/
11
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
Mr. Chris Rowe <br />December 12, 2006 <br />Page Seven of Eight <br />6.3.6 EXHIBIT F -List of Other Permits and Licenses Required <br />1. Please confirm if any of the following permits will be needed. <br />a. There is no County permit required. <br />b. A Substitute Water Supply Plan (S WP) is required by the SEO. <br />a As part of the SWP a well permit will be included. <br />d. There is no SWMP permit requirement per-se. Rather, the States NPDES <br />permit application requires the applicant to affirm that he has a SWMP. <br />e. There is no dam proposed. <br />6.3.12 EXHIBIT L -Permanent Man-Made Structures <br />There aze a total of three (3) man made structures within 200 feet of the affected <br />land including: a dirt road on the north side of the subject property; a gas well <br />located in the eastern 1/3 of the subject property and, the Godding Ditch located <br />southeast of the subject property. To date, the Applicant has attempted to contact <br />the owners representatives regarding the above three structures and are in <br />discussions with representatives of the Godding Ditch. However, because of the <br />length of time typically required to execute a notarized agreement, the Applicants <br />time constraints relative to his contract with the Colorado Department of <br />Transportation and need to move forwazd as quickly as possible; the attached <br />engineering evaluation per rule 6.3.12 (b) was prepared. The Applicant will <br />follow the recommended setback limits, from all man-made structures, described <br />in the attached Scott, Cox and Associates, Inc. letter. <br />Rule 6.3.12 states that "Where the mining operation will adversely affect the <br />stability of any significant valuable or permanent man-made structure located <br />within two hundred (200) fee/ of affected land, the Applicant may either:... (b) <br />provide an appropriate engineering evaluation..." <br />In the present case, the Division's application of the above rule is based on <br />the assumption that the excavation will "adversely affect the stability of <br />...man-made structure"when there is no evidence to support that <br />assumption. Furthermore, the rule states, "the applicant shall provide an <br />appropriate engineering evaluation..."That being the case, the Applicant <br />contends that the Scott, Cox evaluation is appropriate to insure the stability <br />of any structure within 200 feet of the affected land. <br />The slope stability evaluation prepared by Mr. Ed Glasgow, P.E. with Scott, <br />Cox and Asociates, Inc. is no different from previous engineering <br />evaluations prepared by him and accepted by the Division. Operators have <br />successfully applied Mr. Glasgow's slope stability evaluations in order to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.