My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-07-29_REVISION - M1980146
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980146
>
2010-07-29_REVISION - M1980146
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:44:17 PM
Creation date
8/5/2010 2:14:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980146
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
7/29/2010
Doc Name
Final adequacy review - amendment approved (AM-04)
From
DRMS
To
Wasteline, Inc. 7 C&J Gravel Products, Inc.
Type & Sequence
AM4
Email Name
RCO
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
The seed mix is approved for use both on the privately-owned and BLM-managed portions of the permit area. The <br />type of mulch to be used and the methods of spreading and anchoring it, for purposes of the Division's cost estimating, <br />will be straw, scattered with a power spreader and crimped. (The Division also recommends it.) The seed will be <br />incorporated by dragging, for purposes of the Division's cost estimating. (The Division also recommends it.) Unless <br />the operator wishes to comment further, this part of the exhibit is considered adequate. <br />It is understood that not all portions of the permitted area will be retopsoiled and seeded. The Division agrees that <br />there has been no written proposal not to revegetate marginal areas. However, during onsite and in-office discussions <br />(at which not all parties were present and thus were perhaps unaware) questions arose about the ultimate fate and final <br />reclamation of various portions of the pit. Therefore the Division sought to have clarified these aspects of the plan at <br />this point in the amendment process: (1) Would there be need to provide different reclamation details for parts of the <br />floor or the road areas? (2) Are there currently structures and features that are not depicted on the mining maps, or that <br />may need to be identified on the reclamation maps as to their removal? (3) If a reclamation map included only some of <br />the roads that were to remain, while others were removed, what presumption was the Division to make concerning <br />buildings? These issues now appear to be settled, and unless the operator wishes to comment further, this part of the <br />exhibit is adequate. . <br />Exhibit F- Reclamation Maps. <br />The newest revisions of the following maps now contain a signature, plus other required changes, and are now <br />adequate: Map F-1, Map F-2, and Map F-3. <br />An explanation of the Division's question in its last letter, regarding topsoil and revegetation, should be made here. <br />The set of reclamation maps, as submitted during the past 15 months, have presented in aggregate numerous depictions <br />of the site. Often, the features on one map or comparing features from two maps, or tracking changes between <br />revisions were not immediately clear. One example is the area on private land, on Map F-8, submitted in April 2009, <br />labeled as "Industrial (shop yard)" and included several buildings. However, there was no clear distinction made <br />between areas to be revegetated and those that would not (though it appears that the Division is safe in assuming that <br />the industrial area will not be revegetated). Thus originated the Division's comment soliciting clarification of the <br />extent of the revegetation. (It should be noted that no distinction was made on the maps in the areas of swales or <br />channels either, though the Division agrees that these areas are unsuitable for topsoiling and revegetation.) Unless the <br />operator wishes to comment further, this exhibit is considered adequate. <br />Exhibit J - Vegetation Information. <br />This exhibit is for providing information concerning the existing vegetation, not for reclamation measures. The <br />operator's comments under this exhibit heading actually pertain to Exhibit E. Please see Rule 6.4.5(1)(d) and <br />6.4.5(1)(f)(ii). <br />Exhibit N - Right-of-Entry. <br />The proper documentation demonstrating right-of-entry has been provided and this exhibit is considered adequate. <br />All technical issues have been addressed satisfactorily. It is the Division's finding that the amendment is adequate for <br />approval. The Division will prepare and send to the operator an amended reclamation cost estimate under separate <br />cover. If an increased bond is indicated, the amendment will not become final until the bond increase has been <br />accepted by the Division. For any questions related to the types of bonds accepted or the bond forms themselves, <br />please contact Elizabeth Merry at the Division's Denver office (see letterhead address above). Her direct phone <br />number is 303-866-3567 ext. 8148. <br />Though it is not necessary at this point, if you still wish to provide written responses to any of this letter, please ensure <br />that you provide two complete (hard copy) sets of all materials to the Division. These may be submitted directly to me
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.