My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-04-28_REVISION - M1977151
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977151
>
2010-04-28_REVISION - M1977151
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:03:07 PM
Creation date
4/29/2010 7:31:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977151
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
4/28/2010
Doc Name
Adequacy Review
From
DRMS
To
R.M. Hiner Construction Co., Inc.
Type & Sequence
TR2
Email Name
MAC
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.
/
3
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
2. The Applicant has indicated that a portion of the shoreline on the south side of the northern <br />most pond is the only area that remains to be reclaimed. Please note that in addition to minor <br />grading in the identified area, the Permittee shall also be responsible for replacing topsoil and <br />seeding all disturbed areas. As noted in the Division's Inspection Report, dated March 16, <br />2010, the Operator is excavating an area between the southwest and southeast ponds. The <br />actively mined portion of the Greeley Pit is also subject to the requirements of the approved <br />Reclamation Plan and to the reclamation performance standards of Rule 3 of the <br />Construction Materials Rules and Regulations. <br />3. The proposed expansion of the southwest pond will result in a fetch distance of over 1,000 <br />feet. As such, there is the potential that wave action could lead to the erosion of the pit banks. <br />Please describe how erosion from wave action will be mitigated for or demonstrate to the <br />Division that erosion from wave action will not impact the stability of the reservoir banks. <br />Possible mitigation measures may include armoring the pit banks with riprap. <br />6.4.12 Exhibit L - Reclamation Costs <br />4. The Division requests the applicant submit all information necessary to calculate the costs of <br />reclamation. The estimate should be divided into the major phases of reclamation, such as <br />replacing topsoil, grading, and seeding. Unit costs (costs per cubic yard), volumes, haul or <br />push distances, and grades must be included when backfilling and grading are part of the <br />Reclamation Plan. Volume and unit costs for finish grading, subsoil and topsoil application <br />must be provided in terms of cost per cubic yard. The estimated cost for fertilizer, seed and <br />mulch acquisition and application must be provided as cost per acre. <br />6.4.19 Exhibit S - Permanent Man-made Structures <br />5. Upon reviewing the permit file, the Division could not locate structure agreements for the gas <br />line and the overhead power line that bisect the affected area. In accordance with Rule <br />6.4.19, the Applicant shall provide a notarized agreement between the Applicant and the <br />person(s) having interest in the structure, that the applicant is to provide compensation for <br />any damage to the structure. If an agreement cannot be reached, the applicant shall provide <br />an appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not be <br />damaged by activities occurring at the mining operation. If the structure is a utility, the <br />Applicant may supply a notarized letter, on utility letterhead, from the owner(s) of the utility <br />that the mining and reclamation activities, as proposed, will have "no negative effect" on <br />their utility.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.