REV88868 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the future, the permit application will not have to be revised again. Please review the mining plan to determine exactly how many acres will be required to be disturbed at any given time to effectively conduct the mining plan as outlined in this submittal and revise as necessary. Also, as mentioned, Mid-Wes[ Farms may want [o consider including [he option of continuing right into phase 2 out of the final lake in phase 1, as opposed to opening up a new lake with a new overburden pile. Outside of clarifying the mining sequence and associated disturbances, the Division has no problems with the proposed mining plan. 6.4.5 EXHIBIT E-Reclamation Plan The reclamation plan provided with this amendment appears to sufficiently meet the requirements of the act in that it returns the land to a beneficial use, albeit, a lesser one than what currently exists from an agricultural production standpoint. However, the wildlife component that was included with the original application appears to be intact and the conversion to rangeland should actually increase the wildlife value once reclamation is completed. The Colorado Division of Wildlife did submit a statement suggesting that one or two tall growing warm season grasses such as switch grass or yellow Indian grass be included in the grass seed mix. The CDMG concurs with this suggestion and requests that the operator revise their seed mix accordingly. Also, The CDOW made other suggestions concerning the proposed shrub and tree planting that appear to be very sensible and aze supported by CDMG. With respect to leaving small nesting islands in some of the larger lakes or ponds, the CDMG believes that this would be a good reclamation technique and encourages the Mid-Western Farms to explore ways in which this might be accomplished. One suggestion would be to extend the end of the slurry return line into the middle of a lake using pontoons once the lake has been backfilled to its desired surface area size. This would then create a small island in the middle of the lake which may provide the nesting habitat as described in the CDOW letter. Overall, the CDOW suggestions appear to be very sound and would seemingly compliment and enhance the proposed reclamation plan. The main concern that CDMG has with the reclamation plan has to do with to overall timing of the mining and reclamation as stated eazlier in the mining plan comments. It is very important to sequentially identify the exact mining process so that it can be determined how many acres will be in what mining and/or reclamation phase at any given time. Clearly pinpointing this process will of course have great bearing on whether topsoil will belive-handled or stockpiled, when seeding of re-topsoiled areas can occur, the overall reclamation liability, etc., etc. At this point it seems that almost the entire azea associated with each phase will have to be considered disturbed to some degree until mining in that phase is completed. If this is the case, the worst case reclamation liability will need to be adjusted to account for additional area that will be backfilled and regraded, but need to be topsoiled and reseeded. Using phase 1 as an example, the entire phase is 221.6 acres. The proposed maximum area to be disturbed at any single time is 141.8 acres, including 49.2 acres of the prep planUoffice area. This means that only 92.60 acres of phase 1 can actually be disturbed, leaving 129 acres that is not yet disturbed or is fully reclaimed. However, taking into account the concerns outlined under the Mining Plan Exhibit, much of the backfilled and graded portion of the phase will not yet be topsoiled or revegetated because the dredge support facilities may be set up on those areas. Using $2,000.00 dollars per acre (approximate amount to topsoil and seed per acre) and applying it to the 129 acres, this would increase the raw cost of the reclamation liability in phase 1 by $258,000.00 dollars. However, at some point, there probably is going