My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL48127
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL48127
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:24:00 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 4:07:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/11/1989
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO RENNER MEMO OF 12-6-89 SNYDER QUARRY CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FN M-77-210
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
MLR
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.
/
2
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
n~ ~ ~ <br />37 E. Colorado Avenue <br />Denver, CO 80210 <br />(303) 722-9067 <br />Environmental Services • Botanical Studies <br /> <br />• Photography ~~~~"` <br />December 11, 1989 <br />Dan Hernandez and <br />Steve Renner <br />Mined Land Reclamation <br />215 Centennial Hldg. <br />1313 Sherman St <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE: Response to Renner memo of December 6, <br />Snyder Quarry Corrective Action Plan <br />Your File no.: M-77-210 <br />Dear Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Renner: <br />~~C~~~~~ <br />DEC 111989 <br />MINED ~p,N~ <br />1989. RECLAI`'tATlON DIVISION <br />After reviewing Steve Renner's Dec. 6 memo to Dan Hernandez <br />regarding some questions on slope stability of areas 2 and 3 <br />along the quarry access road (and a few other items), we <br />have the following responses. These responses are in <br />addition to our responses in the bound copies of the <br />responses submitted in November. <br />FURTHER RESPONSE TO ITEM 17: Although we still disagree <br />with your assessment that areas 2 and 3 are subject to <br />instability if the slope is steeper than 2:1, we agree to <br />remove the materials in these two areas using methods <br />basically similar to those to be used in the removal of area <br />4. We agree to do this because part of the material will <br />need to be removed anyway to produce a rough surface <br />necessary for holding topsoil on such a large and steep <br />area. It would require only a little more work to remove <br />the material back to the original slope. <br />Doing another analysis of the slopes would be far too <br />expensive and time consuming, especially in the winter <br />months, than it would be worth. In this case it is <br />undoubtedly easier and less expensive to just remove it than <br />to do another study. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.