My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2023-07-19_REVISION - M2021052 (17)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2021052
>
2023-07-19_REVISION - M2021052 (17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2023 8:49:47 PM
Creation date
7/19/2023 3:32:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2021052
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/19/2023
Doc Name Note
Cover Letter
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
IHC Scott
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM1
Email Name
ACY
THM
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.
/
6
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
specific failure rates are highly dependent on the quality of available nursery- <br /> grown material, the specific time and manner of planting, and the growing <br /> conditions at the site in the following growing seasons. The final condition of <br /> reclamation vegetation at the site is governed by performance standards based <br /> on a "70% of pre-construction conditions" standard that is common to the State <br /> and Garfield County. The existing (reference) condition on the property for <br /> wetland fringes abutting open water generally approximates 100% coverage; <br /> therefore the wetland reclamation standard for the green belt would be an <br /> absolute coverage of 70%, inclusive of all desirable planted and volunteer <br /> species but exclusive of noxious weeds. If loss of plantings is sufficient to <br /> prevent the achievement of this performance standard, and the shortfall is not <br /> made up by the establishment of desirable volunteer vegetation, supplementary <br /> planting/seeding would be required to reach the final performance standard. <br /> 6.4.6 EXHIBIT F - Reclamation Plan Map <br /> 14) Figure 16 identifies most areas by name, however it does not state which areas <br /> will be upland, wetlands or pond for all areas names (undisturbed, Greenbelt, Slope <br /> area, berm and outside perimeter). Per Rule 6.4.6(b) revise the legend to sufficiently <br /> portray the proposed final land use for each portion of the affected lands. <br /> Figure 16 depicts the final land uses for each portion of the affected lands. <br /> Previous comments indicated that there was too much information on the <br /> Reclamation Map so this was created in an effort to clearly depict the areas. The <br /> narrative contains detail with regard to the berm being reseeded with upland <br /> mix, the wetlands will be undisturbed, the greenbelt will be revegetated with the <br /> wetland mix and the areas outside of the berm will be reseeded with upland mix, <br /> as needed. <br /> 15) The permit boundary is not clearly identified on the Figures 15 and 16 as required <br /> by Rule 6.2.1(d). <br /> The permit boundary is the `Limit of Dist Area/Permitted Area' line as defined in <br /> the legends on these figures. <br /> 6.4.11 EXHIBIT L - Reclamation Costs <br /> 16) During Phase 1 of the mining plan 11.118 acres is proposed to be stripped of topsoil <br /> and overburden, however the 9.55 acre pond is not proposed to be completed until <br /> phase 3. Pursuant to Rule 4.2.1(4), the Division must take into account the reclamation <br /> of all affected lands that are not currently at the final reclamation configuration in <br /> the event of cessation of mining activity mid project. Therefore, sufficient materials <br /> (topsoil and overburden) must be retained on site to reclaim all affected lands which <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.