My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-03-03_INSPECTION - M2000052
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M2000052
>
2015-03-03_INSPECTION - M2000052
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:57:58 PM
Creation date
3/4/2015 8:47:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000052
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
3/3/2015
Doc Name
Corrective Action Responsw
From
DRMS
To
RMMA
Email Name
TC1
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.
/
5
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
3/3/2015 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Re: Coyote Ridge Inspection Report <br />::♦ <br />STATE OF <br />COLORADO <br />Re: Coyote Ridge Inspection Report — <br />1 message <br />Cazier - DNR, Tim <tim.cazier @state.co.us> <br />Corrz,f 1.%� A �, ��.�5/►��, Se <br />/'y', Cazier - DNR, Tim <tim.cazier @state.co.us> Dlz,'4s Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:25 PM <br />To: "Tom @rmmaterials.com" <Tom @rmmaterials.com (gM,01 A) <br />Tom, <br />developed a cost estimate for flattening the near vertical highwalls in the Area 3 pit. Assuming a 25 -ft height, <br />300 linear feet, a cut & backfill balance to 3H:1V using a D6 (same as the previous to avoid additional <br />mob /demob costs), the Division's software arrived at a $1,996 cost. After adding indirect costs, the total <br />additional bond for knocking down the highwall is $2,944. Based on this estimate, the current bond is still <br />adequate. the Divisionconsiders the corrective action adequately addressed. <br />I've attached the dozer and cost summary worksheets for your reference. <br />Please le me know if you have any questions. <br />Tim Cazier, P.E. <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />A7COLORADO <br />Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />P 303.866.3567 x8169 I F 303.832.8106 I C 303.328.5229 <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215, Denver, CO 80203 <br />tim.cazier @state.co.us I www.mining.state.co.us <br />On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Tom @rmmaterials.com <Tom @rm materials. com> wrote: <br />Tim, <br />In reference to the 1:1 slopes at this operation. The reference to generally excavating the slopes to a 1:1 <br />slope can be looked at in different ways. My interpretation is that it doesn't mean that the slopes would <br />always be mined in that fashion. As well, I see that as a condition of the reclamation plan and not the <br />mining plan. During mining operations, the best blend of material is achieved by using the vertical banks. <br />Per our conversation, it is possible to return the active mining area to a 1:1 slope if necessary however the <br />bond that is in place is sufficient to cover any reclamation work that would be needed even if the slopes <br />were left as vertical. Please review the reclamation costs and let me know if this is not the case. <br />Thanks, <br />Tom <br />https: // mail. google. com /mai I /u/0 / ?ui =2 &i k= 5fO9c8c280& view =pt &search = sent &th= 14bel8784l e68a2c &si m l= 14bel8784l e68a2c 1/2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.