My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-08-13_PERMIT FILE - M2002004 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2002004
>
2002-08-13_PERMIT FILE - M2002004 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 2:18:43 PM
Creation date
11/3/2010 9:46:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2002004
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
8/13/2002
Doc Name
Recommendation for Approval of a 112 Construction Application
From
DRMS
To
GCC Rio Grande, 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.
/
15
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
Other Permits and Licenses - Archaeological and Historic Preservation <br />23. Is clearance from the State Historic Preservation Officer regarding properties of <br />historical significance including the need for an archaeological survey, necessary <br />to conduct the proposed operation? (Rule 6.4.13) <br />The applicant arranged for consultants to conduct an archaeological survey of <br />the plant site and mine site areas. The resulting reports have been reviewed by <br />the DMG and found to adequately address concerns regarding archaeological <br />resources of the site. These reports comply with the requirements of Rule <br />6.4.13. In addition, the applicant has received a letter of concurrence from the <br />Colorado Historical Society with respect to the conclusions reached in the <br />reports. <br />Blasting <br />24. Has the applicant demonstrated that blasting will not damage off-site structures, <br />including the 1886 Adobe house and registered water wells? (Rules 6.4.19 and <br />6.5) <br />STRUCTURES <br />The applicant has addressed the proposed blasting plan in accordance with <br />Rule 6.5(4). The quantity of explosives to be detonated in each "8ms delay" <br />period is consistent with accepted blasting practice and according to "the scaled <br />distance formula ", yields peak particle acceleration at the proposed cement <br />plant (1,500 feet away from the mine) under that allowed by the State of <br />Colorado Department of Labor. The nearest residence is located in excess of <br />4,000 feet away. The 4,000 foot separation yields a safetyfactor in the scaled <br />distance formula of approximately 3.8, and solving for peak particle velocity <br />yields a safetyfactor of 8.7. An acceptable safetyfactor for these values would <br />be in the range of l.2 to 1.5. Therefore, the proposed explosive use is well <br />within the range required by the DMG. <br />WELLS <br />The nearest permitted well is located at the Blake Ranch, approximately 4,000 <br />feet away. The above explanation also applies to the well. <br />25. Has the applicant considered potential blasting impacts to Dakota and Cheyenne <br />aquifers? (Rule 6.5(4)) <br />The applicant noted that, "experimental data for limits of the crushed and <br />fractured zone distances are given for a variety of rock and explosive strengths <br />(Siskind and Fumanti, 1974). The crushed zone ranges from 2 to 4 borehole <br />radii away from the center of the borehole ( 5 to I foot in this instance), while <br />the fracture zone averages 20 borehole radii away and extends to 50 radii
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.