My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-08-09_PERMIT FILE - M1995030
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M1995030
>
2017-08-09_PERMIT FILE - M1995030
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2020 11:17:00 PM
Creation date
8/9/2017 3:46:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1995030
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
8/9/2017
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Environment, Inc
To
DRMS
Email Name
JLE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
McAtee Construction Company. Inc. Page 2 <br /> Green Brother Pit#2 - M-1995-030 August 4, 2017 <br /> The 46 . 65 acres ± on page 7 is correct . I 'm not sure where <br /> the 42 . 18 acres came from. I have attached a corrected page <br /> 6 for the file . <br /> 3. The reclamation plan indicates the above water area includes a 3.36 acre area that will need <br /> resoiling and revegetation. The Exhibit F maps indicated the area needing revegetation (not <br /> including the 9.4 acre Plant Site) is 7.87 acres. Please explain this discrepancy. <br /> The Reclamation Plan Map is correct . The number should be <br /> 7 . 87 acres ± . I 'm not sure where it came from, but I have <br /> attached a corrected page 7 for the file . <br /> Exhibit L /—Reclamation Costs <br /> 4. The applicant has submitted a reclamation cost estimate that includes the cost to reclaim the <br /> site at the greatest level of disturbance. The Division has reevaluated the reclamation cost at the <br /> site based on the information submitted and the additional area proposed for disturbance with <br /> AMO 1. <br /> The Division's reclamation cost estimate is enclosed for your review. The applicant used the <br /> division's cost estimate conducted in January of 2017 as a basis for the unit costs for the <br /> estimate. The January 2017 cost estimate was based on a little over 13 acres of surface <br /> disturbance to be reclaimed. The applicants cost estimate included with the AMO1 application <br /> was for 16 acres of disturbance. Overall, the unit costs used in the applicants estimate have <br /> changed slightly and the unit costs for revegetation were not consistent with the Division's <br /> January 2017 cost estimate. Please review the updated reclamation cost estimate and please let <br /> the Division know if you concur with the estimate. <br /> McAtee Construction Company concurs with your estimate . In <br /> my review it appears as you note that our revegetation costs <br /> differed and I notice that I forgot to account for the <br /> return trip in the mobilization estimate. <br /> Other issues: <br /> 5. Please provide documentation that the publication required by Rule 1.6.2(1)(d) and 1.6.5 was <br /> published. <br /> A copy of the Proof of Publication from the Fort Morgan <br /> times is attached. <br /> 6. In accordance with Rule 1.6.2(1)(e), please provide documentation that the applicant mailed <br /> or personally served a copy of the notice required by Rule 1.6.2(1)(d) to all Owners of Record of <br /> the surface and mineral rights of the affected land; and the Owners of Record of all land surface <br /> within 200 feet of the boundary of the affected lands. <br /> Copies of the Return Receipts are attached for 4 of the <br /> adjoining owners . The return receipt did not come back from <br /> CDOT so a copy of the proof of delivery from the USPS WEB <br /> site is provided to prove it was received by them. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.