My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-08-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2010088
>
2011-08-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:37:05 PM
Creation date
8/22/2011 8:56:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2010088
IBM Index Class Name
APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE
Doc Date
8/22/2011
Doc Name
Adequacy Response #3
From
J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc
To
DRMS
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.
/
19
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
Mike Boulay <br />-10- August 19, 2011 <br />Division Response: CAM provided a new Exhibit 18 which shows that the water <br />in Reed Wash can safely pass underneath the proposed bridge. However, the <br />Division requests that CAM provide a more detailed description of the <br />results in the report, especially what the different profiles on the cross <br />sections represent. In addition, please provide the name of the preparer on <br />page 2 of the report and change from seven channel piers to five channel <br />piers in the third line from the top of the same page. Finally, please <br />reference the Exhibit 18 report on permit text page 2.05 -9. <br />CAM - Please see revised Exhibit 18 and page 2.05 -9. <br />50. As explained in the April 11, 2011 revised permit text sections 2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(2) <br />and 2.05.6(3), Exhibit 9 and Map 16, berms and silt fence will be used to contain <br />any coal spills that might occur near Reed Wash. However, examination of Map 16 <br />shows that there is a section of Reed Wash that is about 350 feet northwest of <br />pond 2 that comes to within 60 feet of the railroad loop track but is protected only <br />by ditch D2 -b. Please consider adding a section of protective berm on the outside <br />of ditch D2 -b in this area and revising Map 16 accordingly. <br />CAM - The section near D2 -b is in cut, so a berm is not required. For clarity, contours <br />have been more clearly annotated on Map -16. For additional clarity, please see <br />Map -21 section A -A'. <br />Division Response: The Division requests that the discussion of the silt <br />fences on permit text page 2.05 -46 be updated to discuss all of the silt <br />fences on site. <br />CAM - Please see revised pages 2.05 -46 & 47 and 54. <br />51. Item resolved. <br />Additional Questions regarding Haul Road #1 <br />51 a. Typical Section on Map 15 - How will thickness of Pit Run be determined? Is there <br />a minimum thickness? No discussion is provided. <br />CAM Please see revised Map 15, and text added to page 2.05 -13. Thickness of pit <br />run will be determined prior to construction. From and email from Ken Haley, <br />City of Fruita Engineer, "The City of Fruita would require that improvements are <br />in place to structurally support the amount of truck traffic proposed ". Similarly, <br />DRMS Rule 4.03.1(5) requires haul roads be surfaced and designed according to <br />the proposed volume of traffic, weight and speed of vehicles. The section shown <br />on Map -15 is based upon haul roads constructed at other mines and used by <br />similar trucks, with similar weights and volumes. There does not appear to be a <br />standard that must be followed for haul road construction. If during construction, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.