Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Task Description Cost <br />1.Mobilization and De-mobilization of ..................$519.51 <br />Dozer and Excavator <br />2.Aough Grading ........................................$2830.00 <br />3.Ripping ..............................................$556.50 <br />4.Soi1 Replacement .....................................$891.63 <br />S.COntouring w/ Excavator ..............................$1540.08 <br />6.Revegetation .........................................$5000.00 <br />7.Indirect Costs (179) .................................$1927.41 <br />TOTAL ...........................$13,265.13 <br />Submittal of a replacement financial warranty in the amount of $13,300.00, or a <br />rider to the existing warranty in the amount of $8,300.00, will be a <br />stipulation to revision approval. <br />2. Potential for Damage to Structures within the Permit Area <br />The Mined Land Reclamation Act, 34-32-115-4(d), C.R.S., requires mine operators <br />to secure agreements with persons having an interest in structures that may be <br />adversely impacted by the mine operation. The power poles located within the <br />permit boundary of this pit are covered under this section of the Act. You <br />will be required to obtain an agreement with the utility controlling this power <br />line, stating that Gunnison Gravel will compensate the utility for damages to <br />the line that may occur as a result of mine operations. You will be required <br />to submit to the Division documentation of such an agreement. The foregoing <br />will be a stipulation to revision approval. <br />3. Storm Water and Run-off Management Plan <br />You have indicated that due to the nature of the soils and lack of any base <br />flow at the site, that run-off from the disturbed area ie minimal. To confirm <br />your assertions, the Division has modeled the surface water hydrology within <br />the permit area utilizing STORM public domain computer software. The map <br />submitted with your letter dated January 2, 1993 divides the site into three <br />watersheds, and you have indicated that storm water would be controlled using <br />ditches, rock check dams, and settling basins as indicated on the map. The <br />basic elements of this plan are acceptable to the Division. <br />The computer model analysis tends to confirm that run-off from the site will be <br />alight. For an SCS type II, 10 year, 24 hour storm event, discharge volume <br />from the north watershed is calculated to be .OS acre-feet, from the middle <br />watershed discharge is calculated to be .08 acre-feet, and from the south <br />watershed, .02 acre-feet. The rock check dame and settling areas must be <br />designed to hold these anticipated flows, for example, in order to detain .08 <br />acre-feet from the middle watershed, a single pond 50'x50'x2' would be <br />sufficient. <br />One concern with the storm water management plan is the apparent location of <br />settling basins outside of the permit area ae indicated on the map. All <br />disturbance, including ditches and constructed basins, must be within the <br />permit area. If the basins indicated on the north aide of the permit area and <br />