Laserfiche WebLink
a <br /> <br />amounts of asphalt. The applicant should specifically state what offsite backfill materials <br />will be brought in and verify in a signed affidavit that they are consistent with the <br />definition of "inert material" as listed in Rule l.l(20). If material not previously listed in <br />this application is to be brought in, the applicant must agree to comply with all details of <br />Rule 3.1.5(9). Any other backfill materials, such as brick, may require analysis and <br />testing to verify that they are inert, and verified test results will be required if these <br />materials are to be brought on-site. Please commit to this in writing. The applicant is also <br />advised to consult with representatives of Weld County and the State of Colorado, <br />Hazazdous Materials & Waste Management Division for specific permitting requirements <br />involving solid waste disposal. <br />4) A copy of the State Engineer Guidelines for Lining Criteria for Gravel Pits, July 1999 was <br />submitted. However, this criteria does not completely address all concerns regarding the pit <br />liners. As was stated in the Second Technical Adequacy Review of the Slope Stability <br />Analysis on March 1, 2000, details about the liner core and the embankment material have <br />also been omitted. Specifically: soil specifications which include the percent fines in the soil <br />mix, as well as the plasticity criteria; a compaction plan that includes the number and <br />thickness of lifts; a quality assurance plan that includes the frequency of liner testing per <br />lineaz foot (not simply per day), which kind of density and moisture content tests aze to be <br />done, and reporting of results to DMG. If the liner is to be keyed into the bedrock, specifics <br />on how this is to be done must be given. These specifics must be submitted to DMG prior to <br />any approval of embankment design. This is in accordance with Rule 6.4.5(2)(a) of the <br />Construction Materials Rules and Regulations. If the Operator does not wish to submit these <br />criteria at this time, he may either (a) bond for the cost of lining the entire pit, or (b) agree to <br />submit a Technical Revision with the complete liner specifications (construction, soil, and <br />quality assurance) prior to exposing groundwater at the site. See item number 10 of Tom <br />Schreiner's review, also. <br />Exhibit S -Permanent Structures <br />5) The stability analysis response letter which was submitted by Tuttle Applegate on February <br />22, 2000, has already been reviewed and a response has been sent from DMG. The issues <br />cited in our letter of Mazch 1 must be resolved by the current decision due date. Either <br />compensation agreements must be agreed upon with the land and structure owners listed on <br />the Exhibit C map and in Exhibit F, a 200' setback must be preserved, or the detailed <br />engineering geotechnical stability analysis must be modified and re-submitted. This is in <br />accordance with Rule 6.4.19 of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations. <br />6) The list of landowners owning critical structures within 200' of the excavation, who were <br />previously omitted from this submittal, has been amended, and their properties will be taken <br />into account in the slope stability analysis. <br />7) The query regarding the tiling drains, has, for the most part, been adequately answered. <br />However, DMG would like a time schedule for the implementation of the planned <br />replacements and changes to be made [o the tiling drains as laid out in the January 11, 2000 <br />letter from Tuttle Applegate (see above, item 3b). <br />