My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-06-21_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2010088
>
2011-06-21_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:34:43 PM
Creation date
6/22/2011 9:31:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2010088
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
6/21/2011
Doc Name
Adequacy Review No. 2
From
DRMS
To
CAM Colordo, LLC
Email Name
MPB
SB1
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.
/
58
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
Corey Heaps <br />CAM Colorado LLC <br />June 21, 2011 Page 33 <br />2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(2) and 2.05.6(3). Design for the silt fences can be found in Exhibit 9, and <br />locations are shown on Map -16. <br />Division Response: As explained in the April 11, 2011 revised permit text sections <br />2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(2) and 2.05.6(3), Exhibit 9 and Map 16, berms and silt fence will be used <br />to contain any coal spills that might occur near Reed Wash. However, examination of Map <br />16 shows that there is a section of Reed Wash that is about 350 feet northwest of pond 2 <br />that comes to within 60 feet of the railroad loop track but is protected only by ditch D2 -b. <br />Please consider adding a section of protective berm on the outside of ditch D2 -b in this <br />area and revising Map 16 accordingly. <br />51. The plan and profile of the proposed rail loop is provided on Map 21; there is very little <br />other information presented within the application. Based on communication with Ms. <br />Stover - Bishop, Union Pacific railroad has its own detailed requirements governing the <br />construction of embankments. Please provide a summary of those requirements for <br />inclusion within the permit text. Otherwise, the Division will need to require that the <br />embankments be constructed in accordance with the Rules for roads and embankments. <br />CAM Response: Page 2.05.9 has been revised, and Union Pacific Construction Standards <br />have been provided in new Exhibit 16. <br />Division Response: Page 2.05 -9 was revised, and Union Pacific rail line specifications <br />were incorporated into the application as Exhibit 16. The UP specifications are, however, <br />incomplete. Only odd - numbered pages have been provided. Please incorporate the <br />missing pages into Exhibit 16. <br />Rule 2.05.3(3)(c)(i) requires that specifications for each bridge be provided. On page 2.05- <br />9, the bridge is described as being 9' in width and 60' in length, constructed of steel girders <br />with concrete abutments. The second paragraph states that geotechnical work on the <br />foundation will be performed prior to construction of the bridge. Please provide general <br />details and a plan sheet of the proposed bridge for inclusion in the permit application <br />CAM Response: Please see the Bridge plan and profile shown on Map -21. <br />Division Response: Map -21 was revised to incorporate the proposed Bridge Plan and <br />Profile as a separate detail in the lower right -hand corner. The Division understands that <br />final design of the bridge will be completed in the near future. Upon completion of the <br />final design, please modify the plan/profile view on Map 21 to include additional <br />details such as the abutments, or provide a separate plan/profile sheet for this <br />purpose. <br />In the view provided on Map 21, Bridge is misspelled "Bride ". Please correct the <br />spelling. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.