PERMFILE65398

• Permit No: M1980224
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/10/1980
• Doc Name: MACKENZIE PIT MLRB 80-224
• From: MLR
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~! Page 2~ 80-224 •
4. The crusher and stockpile of gravel will remain at the foot
of the mined slope. Thus the entire area will be incorporated
into the final reclaimed land.
Exhibit D:
1. The letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife is enclosed.
2. No drainage water is expected to leave the mined site. As
indicated in our application, excavation is to stop above the water
table. Surface run-off is virtually non-exist ant because of the
i permeability of the mine floor. No supplemental water is required.
Exhibit E:
1. The answer is yes. Much to my embarrassment, I said it back-
wards; I meant 3:1 as you have indicated.
2. We agree completely with your suggestion of a 1% slope away
from the foot of the finished embankment. We intend to give this
site premium treatment because of its value as a future building
site. We think that should be an understanding for all proposed
reclamation commitments.
3, The seeding mixture proposed for this site is exactly the same
mixture recommended by Mr. Schmieding of your office and Mr. Roper
of the SCS Office in Canon City for a very comparable site in the
Canon City area also operated by Fremont Paving. Use of this mix-
ture was discussed with you in August and with the SCS Range Man-
agement specialist in November. The excessive seeding rate and
added cost is not justified or consist ant with previous advice.
However, if this requirement is specificly required by the Board
we will comply.
4, As indicated in the Mining Plan, a vehicle path will be left
undisturbed on two sides of the measured area. We have indicated
that only four acres will be mined, however, we wish to allow for
a margin of safety in the actual designated boundary along the
north boundary.
5. As indicated, we plan to use a seed drill designed for grass
and would expect to handle fine seed in a separate agitator.
Exhibit H:
We think a $1500 bond is more than adequate, particularly when
we have constantly indicated our intention to prepare the site for
future commercial use. When a $2500 bond is typically required
to reclaim up to 9.9 acres under a limited impact permit, then $1500
for four acres is very generous, especially in the light of our de-
tailed costing at essentially worst case prices. Again, we do not
want our objections to further delay a favorable review. Thus, we
will comply if so ordered upon the specific review of the Board of
our reasons as written here-in.
S~~yce~~re(l~,
1T8na1" d A'. Ra p l r