Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Tab 25 <br />1. SCC revised the swell factor of the backfilled material from 12% to 17°lo in the bond <br />estimate. There appears to be no increase in bond money to account for the 5% swell <br />dC. increase. Please revue the bond estimate to account for the additional 5% of material <br />to be moved. <br />5. SCC states that final grading of the pit is already included in the bond estimate. The <br /> <br />L estimate prepared by SCC only depicts backfilling and grading. Final grading is a <br />common task tncluded in estimates for large surface mines to conform to the specified <br />vt <br />. contour or elevation. According to Walker's Building_Estimators Reference Book, "after <br /> all backfill is in place and the site has been cut and/or filled to the approximate specified <br /> contours, rough grading of the site is done, by hand for small Jobs and by machine for <br />i <br />l <br />' <br /> large areas, usually preparatory to the spreading of topsoil: <br />Please <br />nc <br />ude a cost for <br /> final grading in the reclaimed pit.. <br />6.r9L This comment references retention of the haul roads. Please see comment 31 and update <br /> the bond estimate accordingly. <br />7. SCC states that topsoil pile F will not be utilized until sometime in late 1998 or 1999. <br />~~14 If SCC does not wtsh to post the bond amount for topsoil Pile F at permit issuance, the <br /> Division can allow a stipulation to post the bond prior to tts construction. <br />8. SCC states that the FPC program does not contain an option to input an altitude <br /> adjustment factor, and that the operator efficiency factor of 83 percent is adequate. The <br />v'(~ Dtvision requires an above average operator efficiency of .83 as well as an altitude <br /> adjustment factor. Please revise the operator efficiency factor to take into account the <br /> altitude adjustment factor. A combined factor of .75 is acceptable by the Division. <br />9. SCC did not include a cost for a final drainage channel in the reclaimed pit. Under the <br /> worst case scenario, a. drainage channel will be required when the pit is reclaimed. In <br />~ order to avoid designing a ditch for each possible condition of pit closure, the approved <br /> design in the permit should be adequate to estimate the cost. Please include a cost for <br /> the final drainage channel in the bond estimate. <br />~'h 10. The Division will incorporate a stipulation into the permit to post a bond for Pond 11. <br />New Comment <br />20. In SCC's response to CDMG's comments, a few items were change in the permit that <br />need to be reflected in the bond estimate. Item 78, SCC states that they will revise the <br />~L seed mix and shrub and tree transplant sites. Item 80, SCC proposes to establish 3 acres <br />of aspen at 2 reclaimed sites. Please incorporate these changes and any future changes <br />in the bond estimate. <br />The Division's permit decision is due May 19, 1995. Please respond to these concerns prior to <br />this date. If you or your staffs have questions or need additional information, please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />Erica S. Crosb <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: Larry Routten <br />SL6\YSTPAR2.WP <br />