Laserfiche WebLink
Rug 07 03 11:33a <br />p.5 <br />Suggt*sted Responsta to tdLRS Adequacy Comments <br />1) MRCS does not recommead terhlizinQ because is will cau<_c noxious weeds to pmheC[ate and the <br />native plonts will have :t hard time surviving aEr:r the initial feniliz+tion. <br />2) The. thickness of the: firm-grained residual material will ae 3 [o E Inches. At the time of maximum <br />riismtbance we cs1ir11atC tltcre will be 1200 linear feel of high wall with a 20-foot wide 6erc%t 1 he <br />rc.ultine volume, of material will he'1'l'S to 4~kI cWic yards. Dared or. the amoanr nfrh~s matt:rial <br />produced by the mining and crushing operations on5i[e, there will always he a5tockpile svaihtble far <br />epraadirg Theret'nre, no replacement con is warranted. However, we would propose s cost for <br />spreading the stockpiled material of approximately 50JU per Cubic yard i eaultio~ in a local cost of <br />3111 to 522?. <br />3) As recommended hy' Terracori, the reclamation of the outslopes at the nartlt and south eud ucdw <br />hi~+ wall will be reclaimed Vv placin~'renrranpnu rock nrhhle nn 2:1 slopes. his cstimaud that the <br />volume of material needed to bo moved wtill ba approximately 125 cubic yards per autslope. <br />Handling/recontoering rho material troll cast 3pptoximztctp 5 i.00 per cable yard. Therefore the cost <br />for reclamation worlri he nn the order of 5125 per outslape or 5250 total (2 outxlnpes). 'Che cost fur <br />blaanr.s, if needed, would Le approzunotcly 5157 (Sl'_'.50 par linear foot times ]2.5 linear feet ae 2a <br />slopej, if blasting is required the [oral cast for reclarraHnn of both ou~lopcs would be on the order of <br />S°55. <br />5) Slasrmg would Involve appro~ivrately 18.5 cubic yards per lineal four nF high wall. w'urst-t:zx <br />scenario w»uld be 1200 feet of high o~atl r_ulr:ng ir: ?^_?00 ctt'^.rc yanit of maerial ut l;c moved. At a <br />tree of SL00 percubic yard; this cost [could /'e a maeimum of 52,200. <br />.j tvhda rha parrot; allows a :troxintur, duw;lrcd zrca of:I ear;, .ve usad It) ar. re. h2aed on Mstoric <br />tnfotmadan. Cutrendv and Iristorcally no more than lU acres have been dtsitubed a[ anv ore time. <br />Hotvcvc:, if ~iLRII would prefer to ue 2 f acres then thr n:clamation Cos[ would be SZ 1;000. <br />Huw~.cr, ~ portion of eats a'ra would rntluca the l ~t)!7-font (msr;munr) high wall rshich represents <br />approximatel}• 0.ti acre at an estimated cost of 515,000. Therefore, the maeimum cost would be <br />S'i0:S00 (21 acres minus 0.5•aue high mall) plus an estimated S 15,000 For a coral reclamation cost u~ <br />3?S,SOO. <br />w'ltila the post-mining lanrt u.Se is to be imprOVCd tangelartd and wildlife habitat, it w5s not intendc!d to <br />specifically Construct "hahilat". 5iucc [he pre•mining lundxnpe is primar+ly expn.ad bedock Iarpely <br />devoid of tupwil and vcp,Ctatian, the "improved rangeland and uihiide habitat" will be achieved by <br />plantinG which wi[I provide Corage for gra~ang and cover for habitat whic':r did not pm+;ously exist. <br />prior to seeding, the .ceeA bed (iC„ fiRe-gCdia~~ rt:5idual utautial) .vill be prepared by diseing, rt <br />necessary date to over cumpactivu. The send will then be planted using the ;frill method and <br />subscyut:utly weed-free straw will be crimped into the sce<1 trrd rn F.elp prevent erosion and rctsin <br />moisture, The reclamation cost at' SI pu0 [•er acre includes [hest truka. <br />719-dG0-StlS~ pax: 719-431-Od^_9 E.nt+il• k-s~pcisys.nel <br />