Laserfiche WebLink
�Ij <br />RECENIM <br />AUG 112015 <br />DIVISION OF RECLAMA�TION <br />MINING AND SAFETY <br />1 <br />CO Division of Reclamation Mining & Safety <br />Attn: Eric Scott, Environmental Protection Specialist <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Date: August 6"', 2015 <br />To all concerned, <br />COFFEY <br />ENGINEERING n SURVEYING <br />4045 St. cloud Drive, Suite 180 <br />Loveland, CO 80538 <br />[PI 970-622-2095 IF) 970-461.4469 <br />r'Yi - 1986 o67 <br />The owners of the Masonville Quarry engaged Coffey Engineering & Surveying to conduct a survey of <br />the disturbed mining operation. Early in June 19, 2015, we went to the site. We established primary <br />control for GPS receivers and performed a calibration to insure that the accuracy was relevant to the area <br />and site. We walked the perimeter of the active quarry and used RTK method on our GPS Trimble GNSS <br />R84. We also defined the perimeter of the `island' or seed -bed area to be excluded from the calculation. <br />After post processing the data, we provided the owner with a report and sketch map showing that the <br />gross disturbed area was 9.4 acres, with the island being 0.4 acres ... for a total disturbed calculation of 9.0 <br />acres <br />After this effort was provided, Eric Scott voiced concerns about how the boundary was defined. 'frying to <br />represent the boundary on an unrectified image added to the confusion. In order to insure that the true <br />area of disturbance was accurately represented... it was determined that meeting on site would be to only <br />way to have complete confidence in the acreage calculation. On July 22nd the owner, Eric Scott, and <br />myself, met on site and walked the entire perimeter of the active quarry. Eric and I discussed the <br />boundary point by point and left lath markers at each angle point of the disturbed area boundary. On July <br />31, 2015 a survey crew from my office went to the site and located each of the angle point marks set by <br />Eric and myself. This field data was post processed and the calculations performed again. To insure the <br />integrity of the data and that no stakes had moved from the time 1 had walked it with Eric, on August 5, <br />2015 I had a separate crew accompany me back to the site and retraced the locations that I had set with <br />Eric. We found no instances where the boundary was different than the field survey performed on July <br />315`. The gross area of the mine was determined to be 9.51 acres, with the `island' or seed -bed covering <br />0.22 acres for a net area of disturbance of 9.29 acres. <br />Coffey Engineering & Surveying has permanent record of the control, boundary locations and <br />calculations that can be provided in coordinate format or retraced at any time. I think that the redundant <br />methods, as well as independent survey efforts have been above and beyond the normal protocol, but <br />necessary to conclude the confusion created by not having the boundary consistently monumented. <br />Sincerely, <br />Michael D. Lang, P.L. . <br />Vice President <br />:2Q <br />*. <br />37053 <br />Z rt <br />G) 0 <br />