Laserfiche WebLink
/Memo to Tom Sc_hreinet 2 November 19. 1999 <br />f <br />FIRM should be giovided to illustrate the extent of the backwater behind the highway embankment <br />and to show the development of a water surface gradient upstream of the backwater. <br />-....-..._,-13 <br />Reservoir Liner p,D3 ~T' f 1~a at [ems °`~ ~ ` t°JrS~ __.__ ... .. --- . ` .. <br />The applicant states [hat the pit wil/ltned and will meet the State Engineer's requirements for a lined <br />pit. No materials testing results and no enforceable designs, plans, specifications, or quality assurance <br />information is provided. Thus, the Division cannot regulate the installation of the liner to assure it will . <br />meet standards. _ s ch d must be provided to reline the entire pit. <br />• Dewatering costs - ere lake with an average 13-foot depth aze 378 million gallons <br />times $201.50/m:g. (1994 CDOT data) foi a total direct cost of $76,167.00. <br />• Approximately 171,850 compacted cubic yards of clay will be required to construct an 80001inear <br />foot liner around the pit, The cost to rip the liner material from the pit floor is $25,554.00 (see <br />attached estimating form for ripping work). <br />• The ripped shale must be excavated and placed on the pit perimeter in thin lifts. The attached <br />estimating form for scraper work yields a cost for this task of $180,606.00, including the cost for <br />moisture conditioning, blending and grading of lifts, and compaction. <br />• The cost to replace the random fill and grave] shown on the reclaimed slope cross-section of Exhibit <br />I F, using the applicant's suggested cost, is 128,500 c.y. times $1.25/c.y., or $160,625:00. <br />• Quality assurance testing and observation at $500 per day for 20 days yields a cost of $10,000 for <br />the project. <br />The total cost to reline the pit is $453,000.00 for 80001ineaz feet of liner or $56.63 per lineaz foot of pit <br />wall if it is determined that more than 8000 feet of liner will be required at the point of maximum <br />disturbance. This amount should be substituted as a line item in the Exhibit L cost estimate. -~' <br />-----.~~... _ .,.,v._,,a.~ _.-_._ __.. r _.a.~ <br />Protection of Manmade Structures <br />The applicant objects to the Division's proposed permit condition that setbacks be established at a <br />horizontal distance equal to two times the pit depth. The applicant has provided stability analyses in an <br />effon to demonstrate mining will have no adverse impact on offsite structures, and has provided a <br />discussion of mining setbacks intended to maximize resource recovery while protecting offsite <br />structures. The following issues remain to be addressed relative to the protection of structures and the <br />proposed setbacks. <br />• The setback distances have- been established from the property boundazies. A number of manmade <br />structures reside within the property boundaries and within the setback zones. The applicant must <br />provide a concise discussion of the distance from the limit of mining to the structures located in the <br />setback zones. <br />• In the Division's initial adequacy review the applicant was asked about the gas marker at the <br />southeast comer of the property. In response, the applicant states that the setbacks proposed will be <br />------- <br />._ ~~,.._.»,a <br />