REV00808 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

discussed internally at the Division that these secondary rip rap sites might need a permit from our Minerals Program. It was, however, decided instead that all rip rap source sites, used for the purposes of meeting the requirements of our subsidence control laws and regulations, should be permitted under our program regazdless of the ownership of the lands upon which they would be situated. As such, we decided that rip rap source sites on USFS and/or MCC lands (or other private lands) would need to be permitted by us, and would need a reclamation plan and a bond that would meet our requirements. A third source of rip rap, that of loose rock from the recent McClure Pass rockslide stockpiled near the slide by the Colorado Department of Transportation, has been discussed with us. We believe that removing these materials with the permission of CDOT in a manner that would not create additional surface disturbance would not need to be permitted through our program. A fourth source of rip rap, that from a local gravel company, was also discussed with us. Use of rip rap obtained from a gravel company for the dam strengthening would not need Coal Program approval. We suggest MCC ensure that the gravel company from which the rip rap is obtained is in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations governing our Minerals Program. A fifth source is mentioned in the July 2 20071etter: that of "loose, visible rip rap" that "would be obtained within 200 feet of FS road 71 l: ' This material would be "hauled with a trackhoe or front end loader to a truck on road 711 for loading and further transport." We believe that materials removed from USFS roads themselves would not need sepazate approvals from us, so long as no additional disturbance is created. Approval from the USFS may be needed, however. We believe, however, that removal of materials from areas beyond the edges of those roads for the purposes of complying with our subsidence control laws and regulations should be permitted through us, as well as any other pertinent local, state or federal agency. MCC: Vegetation of the disturbed area within the construction envelope is proposed in accordance to reservoir company's operating plan as currently being revised by the Forest Service. Again, a reclamation bond should not be applicable. As mentioned above, we believe that activities conducted for the purposes of complying with our subsidence control laws and regulations will more often than not require permitting under our rules. We welcome submittal to us of the USFS's reclamation plan or the purpose of meeting our reclamation plan requirements. However, we would additionally need bond money to cover the cost of that reclamation. It is possible that MCC may already have this money in our offices in the form of "surplus" bond money. MCC: MCC does not view this project as a typical "Reclamation" and/or "bondable"project as the project is owned by the MCRC. Please cite specif c rules if DRMS proposes otherwise. We understand MCC's position that as the dam strengthening project is "owned" by MCC, it should not be bonded. We respectfully disagree. We believe that as the dam strengthening is being done for the purposes of complying with our subsidence control laws and regulations, the dam strengthening and its associated activities should be regulated by us so faz as our laws and rules apply. Compliance with applicable laws from other local, state and federal agencies that govern the dam strengthening would also have to be complied with. Please see the attachment for a list of some of the laws and rules that provide the basis for our determination.