Laserfiche WebLink
~~ <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1311 Sherman 51.. Roum 215 <br />Denver, CO 80201 <br />Phone: 003186E d 567 <br />FAX:t;03)832-8106 <br />February :LB, 1994 <br />Mr. Richard D. Gabrielson <br />Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. <br />P. O. Box ].961 <br />Fort Colli.ne, CO 80522 <br />iii iiiiiiiniii iii • <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />~ pF' LOCO <br />Nc ,~ <br />b <br />! ~ O <br />'•d.>~ <br />Roy ROmer <br />Governor <br />Mic hael8 Long <br />Dir MOn Duec for <br />Re: Adec(uacy Review, Technical Revision TR-002, Weaver Quarry, Permit No. M-89-010 <br />Dear Mr. 6~abrieleon: <br />The Division has completed a review of the above referenced revision submittal, and has <br />determined that several items must be addressed prior to acceptance and approval. <br />Please respond to each item on the following list prior to the March 2, 1994 decision <br />date for this revision. <br />1. Reclamation Coats <br />This revision proposes a change in the methodology for achieving 2:1 reclaimed slopes <br />at the qu+;rry margins. The Division will require that impacts on the estimated <br />reclamation costa be examined for back-filling of quarry walla as opposed to <br />reclamation blasting. 1n order to evaluate the back-filling costs, we will need to <br />know average haul or push distances for the back-fill material (i.e. where will the <br />overburden stockpiles referenced in the revision submittal be located in relation to <br />the quarry walla). <br />An access road leading to the mining phases in the southwest portion of the quarry is <br />proposed ae~ pert of this revision. Please provide reclamation details for the proposed <br />road, and a.n estimated cost to reclaim the road. The cost estimate should be based on <br />the cost to perform discrete reclamation tasks (e.g. ripping of the road fill to a <br />specified depth, grading of ripped material into road side ditches, topsoil <br />replacement:, etc.). <br />Recent changes to the Mined Land Reclamation Act brought about by Senate Bill 247 <br />require theLt the Division deposit 5 percent of any revoked bond into a "mined land <br />reclamation fund" to defray administrative costs associated with reclaiming sites for <br />which the bond has been forfeited. Ae a result, mines for which the bond was <br />est abliahec. prior to passage of SB-247 are at least 5 percent under-bonded. This 5 <br />percent will be incorporated into the bond required pending approval of this revision. <br />2. Provosed Drainave Channel <br />As part of Lhis revision, you have proposed a drainage channel that will extend beyond <br />the current permit boundaries. The proposed channel fits the definition of "affected <br />land" founc4 in the Mined Land Reclamation Act. Since all affected land must be <br />included within the permit boundaries, you must amend those boundaries in order to <br />construct the drainage channel as proposed. Be advised that a permit boundary <br />amendment :.s a public process, which for a Regular (112) Permit would require <br />notification of the county commissioners, soil conservation district, and surrounding <br />land owners, as well as newspaper publication of notice for four consecutive weeks and <br />filing of the revision for public view with the county clerk and recorder. Refer to <br />Rule 2.2.2 of the Mineral Rules and Regulations for specifics on notification <br />requirement:a. <br />If you cannot drain the pit by ditching out within the current permit boundary, an <br />amendment to the permit boundary will be required. This could possibly be accomplished <br />through the technical revision process that has already been initiated, but you would <br />