My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE119878
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE119878
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:18:50 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 7:49:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
m2004044
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/29/2004
Doc Name
Recommendation for Approval
From
DMG
To
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board
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.
/
8
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
As required by Rule 6.4.4(1)(e), the operator has provided an estimate of the periods of time <br />which will be required for the various Phases of the operation and has provided a description of <br />the size and location of each area to be worked during each Phase and has outlined the sequence <br />in which each Phase of the operation will be carried out. <br />In accordance with Rule 6.4.5(2)(e), the applicant has provided an estimate of the periods of time <br />which will be required for the various Phases of reclamation; a description of the size and <br />location of each area to be reclaimed during each Phase and an outline of the sequence in which <br />each Phase of reclamation will be carried out. <br />In accordance with Rule 6.4.6, the applicant has provided an adequate reclamation plan map. <br />3. Was the applicant in violation at the time of application for the 27 acres to be transferred <br />from permit No. M-1991-140? (34-32.5-120) <br />Wayne C. Muhler, B. Michl Lloyd, City of Brighton <br />The Act at Section 34-32.5-120 states "The Board shall not grant a permit for new mining <br />operations to an operator who is found to be in violation of this article at the time of application." <br />No enforcement actions were taken and there are no outstanding violations of any of Aggregate <br />Industries' 25 active permits for the period July 2, 2004 (date of filing) to the present time. <br />Aggregate Industries abated all violations found by the Board prior to their filing date. <br />4. Has the applicant proposed measures to minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance of <br />the Brantner and Brighton ditches? (Rule 3.1.6(1)and (3)) <br />Wayne C. Muhler, B. Michl Lloyd, City of Brighton <br />This issue was also a concern of the Division's and the applicant was required to address it in <br />response to the initial adequacy review. A concern was that eroded material stockpiled in the <br />West Fill Area would reach the Brantner and Brighton ditches, outside of affected lands, <br />degrading the quality and possibly the quantity of water in them. The applicant's plan to protect <br />the ditches consisted of placing hay bales and silt fences as barriers to prevent sediment from <br />reaching the ditches. The Division considered those methods to be inadequate and required a <br />plan from the applicant to provide more complete protection for the ditches. <br />The applicant provided plans to construct sediment collection trenches and settling ponds in <br />addition to the hay bale and silt fence barriers. The trenches, one above each ditch, are planned <br />to outlet into settling ponds and return clean water to the ditches. The operator has also agreed to <br />create no stockpiles with slopes steeper than 3h:ly and to seed the stockpiles with a temporary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.