HYDRO28274 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII t STATE OF COLORADO Richard D. Lamm, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director 231 Columbine Bldg., 1845 Sherman St. Denver, Colorado 80203 892-3311 February 11, 1976 Fle '1~-a- Boartl of ~antl Dommissioners Dn~s wn of Atlm m~sl~alion Divison of M,nes D rvrs inn of Pads 8 Owtloor Recrea~ian D rvismn of Wader Resources Division of Wdtllila Geoioq¢ai Survey Oil erva Gas Conservation Camm~ss~on Soil Consarvai.on Boars Weler Conservation Boertl Jefferson County Board of Land Commissioners Jefferson County Board of Adjustment Attn: Marv Downs Jefferson County Courthouse 1700 Arapahoe Golden, Colorado 80419 SUBJECT: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE ~M75 COOLEY GRAVEL COMPANY Gentlemen: The State Geologist and Deputy Commissioner of Mines, both of whom are Board members, have evaluated your letter and re-examined our files on the operation. It was discussed at some length in our meeting yesterday. Hopefully, the following answers your question concerning the terrace edges and the size of the reclamation bond, First, it would be poss?b~z to round the edges or to blast off the sharp corners on the edge of the benches or terraces. However, the Board feels that it would be inadvisable. The benches serve an important safety measure in two ways. The benches provide greater overall stability to the entire cut slope. They also provide a trapping mechanism for rocks which, from natural or man-made causes, may be dislodged from the cut face or overlying slopes and would tend to fall, bound or roll down the slopes. Rounding the edges would decrease the width of these benches. The drilling and blasting required to remove the sharp edges would be ex- pensive as well as somewhat dangerous in itself, and would decrease the stability of the slope. The Colorado Division of Nines feels very strongly that the additional blasting necessary to round the corners would loosen additional rock and would provide a serious continuing hazard to the workers below. In our opinion, the added safety risks and the additional costs are not merited by the possible aesthetic improvement of the appearance of the cut slopes. Second],y, the $55,000 bond was based on $1,000 per acre. It was believed at the time that the bond was set that the bond would represent the actual costs of reclamation if the state or a third party would have to take over the operation and perform the necessary recla.raation, It was believed that grading and large scale shaping of the surfaces would be essentially completed during each stage of the operation. The majority of the reclamation costs would therefore be related to revegetation, and adequate reclamation could be perform- ed on the site for $55,000. Ewen now, it would seem that the county's