My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-08-23_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1996083
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2013-08-23_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1996083
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:24:08 PM
Creation date
8/26/2013 9:15:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
8/23/2013
Doc Name
Gob Pile 3 Certification Adequacy Review
From
Marcia Talvitie
To
Susan Burgmaier
Permit Index Doc Type
Roads
Email Name
SLB
SB1
MLT
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.
/
3
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
8/26/13 <br />State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: Gob Pile No. 3 <br />3. The fourth paragraph addressed compaction of the asphalt pavement. The wording should be modified to read <br />"...achieved the required 92% to 96% of the theoretical maximum density attained in laboratory tests in <br />accordance with Colorado Procedure 51 (CP -51). <br />4. In the sixth paragraph, it states that fill was not required to the south of the canal bridge, and that this section <br />or road received -6" of road base. In this situation, common practice would be to scarify, add moisture if <br />necessary, and recompact the in -situ soils in order to ensure the stability of the roadbed. Was this work done <br />prior to placement of the road base? <br />5. The seventh paragraph says the permitted width of the haul road was 30 feet. I was unable to find this number <br />in any of the permit documents listed above. Rather, it seems that 20 to 24 feet is what was anticipated. <br />Building the road wider should be preferable, from an operations standpoint, but saying that 30' was originally <br />approved may be inaccurate. <br />6. The final paragraph of the certification states that, "... the gob pile haul road was constructed as designed and <br />in accordance with the approved plan and the regulations. A few of the regulations are referenced within the <br />certification language, but specifics on the permit are not. I think it would be appropriate for the certification to <br />provide a reference to the various parts of the permit in which the design criteria can be found. <br />This concludes my comments on the certification. Let me know if you have any questions. <br />Marcia <br />Marcia L. Taivifie, P.E. <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />Durango Field Office <br />691 CR 233, Suite A -2 <br />Durango, Colorado 81301 <br />(970) 247 -1184 <br />(303) 866 -3567 x8178 <br />On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Burgmaier - DNR, Susan <susan,burgmaierstate , co,us> wrote: <br />Hi Marcia - At your earliest convenience, will you please review this certification and let me know if you have <br />any comments or concerns? Thanks. <br />Susan L. Burgmaier <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver CO 80203 <br />https: / /mail.g oog le.conVmai I /u /0 / ?ui =2 &i Ire29129fcb5 &viev�-- pt &search =i nbox&th= 140bae4f7c4e829e 2/3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.