My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE127784
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE127784
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:24:54 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 5:15:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999098
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/20/2000
Doc Name
TECHNICAL ADEQUACY REVIEW OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR NEW 112 RECLAMATION PERMIT APPLICATION PN
From
DMG
To
CAMAS CO INC
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
<br />mining any deeper along these excavation limits. Please confirm this in writing. [f this <br />condition of your permit is ever changed, the setback requirements must be re-evaluated at <br />that time, and the Operator is reminded that failure to comply with this condition would <br />constitute a serious violation of the permit. <br />13) Since no Case 3 -Mining Conditions -Cache Le Poudre River -was submitted, it is <br />assumed that the Operator is choosing to comply with the requirements for the 100' and 200' <br />riverbank setbacks outlined in Tom Schreiner's technical adequacy review of December 16. <br />Please state this in writing. <br />14) No details about the construction of the liner, its installation, or the quality control measures <br />to be taken during the process of installing it have been furnished. Details about the liner core <br />and the embankment material have also been omitted. Soil specifications, compaction <br />requirements, and a quality assurance plan (including liner testing frequency and a <br />monitoring plan) must be submitted to DMG prior to any approval of embankment design. <br />This is in accordance with Rule 6.4.5(2)(a) of the Construction Materials Rules and <br />Regulations. See item number 10 of Tom Schreiner's December 16 review, also. <br />15) For backfilled slopes, please submit a backfilling plan, along with compaction specifications, <br />that meets the requirements of Rule 3.1.5(9) of the Construction Materials Rules and <br />Regulations. Also, please see question 4 of Tom Schreiner's December 16 review memo. <br />Again, additional issues may be raised by the submittal of the requested floodplain and <br />hydrological modeling analyses for this site. This is only a preliminary response to the soil <br />stability analysis, and is not meant to be taken as the final review of soil stability at the site. <br />Please address these concerns prior to the currently scheduled due date of February 4, 2000. If <br />these concerns aze not dealt with, or the decision date extended by February 4, DMG will be <br />forced to deny your application. At this time, the Division is anticipating holding aPre-Hearing <br />Conference on February 14, on the assumption that we will be able to give our decision on this <br />application on Februazy 4. <br />If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (303) 866-3567. <br />Sincerely, <br />~l/1,~.~.c~~ <br />Christina L. Katnnikaz <br />~~~ ' <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Cc: Cazl B. Mount, DMG <br />Shani Eastin, Tuttle-Applegate Inc. <br />Connie Davis, CAMAS <br />US Fish & Wildlife Service <br />US Army Corps of Engineers <br />Objection List <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.