My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-10-16_REVISION - M1977036 (8)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977036
>
2009-10-16_REVISION - M1977036 (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:20:35 PM
Creation date
10/22/2009 7:47:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977036
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
10/16/2009
Doc Name
First Response to Adequacy Review #1 Comments
From
Tetra Tech
To
Weld County
Type & Sequence
AM1
Email Name
JLE
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.
/
32
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
Page 6 of 8 <br />TETRA TECH Mr. Jared Ebert <br />October 16, 2009 <br />6.4.12 EXHIBIT L - Reclamation Costs <br />20. It appears that the majority of the South Central Pit and East Pit will be backfilled so <br />that only 16 and 11 acres of open water will remain. How many acres (if any) are <br />already backfilled in the South Central Pit and East Pit? How deep will material be <br />backfilled into the South Central and East Pit? <br />We do not have an answer to this question yet; therefore, we will respond to this <br />comment as soon as possible. <br />21. How much material is on site currently to backfill the South Central and East Pit <br />excavations? <br />We do not have an answer to this question yet; therefore, we will respond to this <br />comment as soon as possible. <br />22. It states in the Exhibit L narrative that 114 acres of the affected land will remain as <br />open water. However based on the reclamation plan map, 5 open water ponds will <br />contain 140 acres. Please explain this discrepancy? <br />The reason for the discrepancy is that the 26 acre North Central Pit has already been <br />reclaimed as a pond and so it was left out of the calculation. However, because you <br />have requested topographic information for this pond to confirm that it was <br />reclaimed with the required slopes and have agreed to delay requiring this <br />information until prior to release of the site, we will add this area into the updated <br />version of Exhibit L. An updated version of Exhibit L will be forwarded to you later. <br />23. Please provide evidence that pit slopes around the North Central Pit are reclaimed to <br />the required slopes. That is 4:1 to the water line and 3:1 below that. <br />As indicated on the attached email from you to David Jordan, this information will be <br />provided prior to release of the site. <br />24. What are the current conditions of the pit slopes around the west pit, south central pit <br />and the east pit in terms of horizontal to vertical slope ratio? <br />This information is currently unavailable. We are acquiring it and will follow-up to <br />provide this information to you as soon as possible. <br />25. Based on the reclamation plan map, the majority of the South Central Pit and the East <br />Pit will be backfilled with material and then revegetated with upland grasses. These <br />upland areas will need to be topsoiled. Please show the location of the current topsoil <br />stockpiles that will be used to topsoil these areas on the mining plan map. <br />Some of the topsoil will come from the existing berm along 35`h Avenue and the rest <br />will likely need to be brought in from off-site. However, we will more carefully look <br />at this and respond with more certainty as soon as possible. <br />26. Since 140 Acres of open groundwater will remain after the site is reclaimed, LaFarge <br />must obtain a court approved augmentation plan from the Office of the State <br />Engineer. The Division is required to set the financial warranty at a level which <br />reflects the actual current cost of fulfilling the conditions of the Reclamation Plan per <br />Rule 4.2.1(1). Therefore, without an augmentation plan in place the financial <br />warranty must be set at an amount which accounts for the exposed groundwater. The <br />Division has identified several options for determining the amount of the financial
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.