Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'~.. <br />Memo to Tom Schreiner 2 July 1, 2002 <br />relatively short vertical rock faces versus a relatively steep wall will reduce the risk of wall <br />failures. <br />In addition to the advantages mentioned in the above quote, development of the quarry as a series of <br />temporazy benches leading eventually to a final benched perimeter as the permit azea is quazried out, <br />will have the advantage of making the Operator eligible for a lower reclamation bond amount. For <br />example, if the Operator were to develop the quarry with a 200 foot hi-gh, near vertical working face, <br />but the reclamation plan required 40 foot by 40 foot benching for the final pit walls, the DMG would <br />have to bond for the cost to bench into the working face. This bonding would be a necessary <br />contingency in the event that the quarry would be shut down prematurely, with over- steepened <br />temporary walls in place, and the State of Colorado were to be required to complete reclamation using <br />a forfeit bond. This situation is illustrated in the following diagram: <br />The cost to blast and remove the rock in the hatched azea must be accounted for in the bond unless the <br />Operator were to commit to mine all quarry walls, even the temporazy working faces, with benches <br />from the top down as recommended in the REVEY Report. In the case of a 200 foot highwall,'the <br />benching costs may be estimated as follows: <br />