My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL48560
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL48560
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:25:08 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 4:24:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981148
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
10/24/1978
Doc Name
MEMO-SPECIFIC PROBLEMS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />insurance company may not wish to provide Robinson with a <br />policy covering the negligence of the City. In that event, <br />there would be no guarantee of financial backing for that <br />portion of the indemnification. <br />6. Backfill of overburden into extracted areas must be <br />compacted to certain requirements that the top layer should <br />be permeable enough so as to allow revegetation and natural <br />grasses. In addition, subsoil compaction to specifications <br />preventing later subsisdence should also be included, possibly <br />with provisions for monitoring of same by the City or designated <br />others. <br />The plan submitted by Robinson indicates it will continue <br />to use topsoil as it advances with the pit and let the area <br />return to its native state of grazing land. Although this <br />commitment is phrased in general terms, it does appear that <br />Robinson is willing to attempt to revegetate and if we can <br />convince them to provide more detail in the reclamation plan <br />there is ample statutory and regulatory enforcement power <br />given to the Board to insure that adequate revegetation is <br />accomplished. The same is true of the City's concerns per- <br />taining to compaction. Once we are able to establish the <br />requirements we would like met and they are incorporated <br />into the permit application, the Board will be available to <br />be sure those standards are met. <br />7. Drainage during the interim before all contours are <br />restored is of concern. <br />§34-32-116 of the Act contains five separate provisions <br />which pertain to drainage problems and the prevention of <br />erosion. This is another case where the Board has ample en- <br />forcement authority to meet the concerns of the City pertaining <br />to drainage. In this regard, it is Robinson's obligation to <br />submit adequate information in its application and we can <br />request them to do so and review its proposed plan to be <br />sure our concerns are addressed. <br />8. Limitations should be put on the maximum amount of <br />acreage that can be opened at one time before reclamation <br />occurs. This may also tie with requirements of the Fugitive <br />Dust Law for the State of Colorado. <br />Once a precise legal description of the affected lands <br />is obtained, it may be discovered that the amount of acreage <br />which could be disturbed is acceptable. In addition, Exhibit <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.