Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3 • • <br />December 6, 1991 <br />B. Keffelew <br />Daniels Sand information <br />Of this 113,000 cubic yards of measured stockpile volume about 85,000 <br />cubic yards would fall in a classification that would clearly be subject <br />to bonding. The rest is processed product or stockpiled material to be <br />processed as recycled aggregate (mainly asphalt and concrete). These <br />product stockpiles are an asset and not actually a reclamation <br />liability. In the event of bond forfeiture, they could be sold, so <br />their volume is not strictly relevant to grading costs. <br />With this information provided to you we believe we have fulfilled the <br />information requested in your inspection report. <br />In your letter of November 1, 1991 you requested additional information <br />the Division considers necessary to calculate a "Proper Reclamation <br />Bond." Much of that information can be derived either from the amended <br />plans or from the recently completed map, although compiling and <br />correlating that information would require a lot of work. Rather than <br />spending all that time doing that analysis and then having the Division <br />spend a lot of time sorting through the information and calculating a <br />new bond amount, we have another suggestion. <br />We previously requested a meeting to discuss the situation at the site. <br />In your November 1, 1991 letter the Division denied our request for a <br />meeting and requested additional information to calculate a bond. In <br />light of the fact that, at least with respect to stockpile volumes, the <br />situation is clearly not as serious as originally perceived, we again <br />request a meeting to discuss this matter before any additional <br />information is provided. As will be explained below, we believe that an <br />hour meeting will save both of us many hours of needless effort. <br />The purpose of the meeting would be two fold. First, we want to present <br />to the Division a sketch plan for the amendment that is currently under <br />the initial stages of preparation. This amendment will drastically <br />alter the plan for the entire site, redefining final topography, mining <br />sequences, and various timetables. This amendment will obviously <br />require a very complete re-examination of bonding £or this permit. <br />Second, spending several weeks calculating a new bond figure does not <br />seem to be a wise expenditure of time for either of us if in a few <br />months the entire process will need to be repeated for a whole new plan. <br />It seems more sensible and efficient to spend the time that would be <br />spent calculating a new bond on preparation of the new plan. In light <br />of the Division's limited staff this would provide a means for you to <br />spend the necessary time on more critical issues than a sand pit that is <br />already permitted and bonded and according to at least our <br />interpretation of your inspection report, although not perfect, is not <br />