2003-04-22_REVISION - M1999004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Southwestern Permit #. _ _ Clas$: COnfldenlal?' ~ egetation Analysis ECO~OgICA~ From: Type_ eq . flatland Ecology Services Doc. Name: Doc. Daf e (if T .and Rehabilitation Planning no date stamp): ' hotodocumentation 37 East Colorado Avenue Denver, Colorado 80210-31Ub ,..__. Fax (303) 778-8937 ApxIl 22, 2003 Berhan KefEelew Fi E C E I V E® Division of Minerals and Geology Room zls APR 2 2 2003 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Oiuision of Minerals and Geology KE: Response to adequacy letter of March 12, 2003 -Table Mountain Quarry Amendment #1 Permit M-1999-004 Dear Mx. KefEelew: Please excuse taking so long to respond to your adequacy letter. We wanted to make sure Fremont County did not want to change something that would impact the Reclamation Permit. Now that we are reasonably sure the county will not be changing anything of sigttificance, a response can be provided. In reviewing your letter, it appears there are only two items that require a specific response. One deals with the small sediment control basins and the other with regard to the reclamation costs. Reclamation costs: After review of the initial reclamation costs and as a result of Castle Concrete working on a possible alteration in the type of bonding provided, Castle Concrete desires to revise the reclamation costs. In the new calculations everything is kept the same as the original calculations except for the amount of backwall to be backfdled in the worst case situation. This amount has been reduced to 2000 lineal feet. Because most of the other calculations are linked to that value, some other values are also changed, but the proportions of the cost of the various reclamation actions remain the same. A new spreadsheet calculation is provided with an additional page including the Indirect Costs based on the values shown in your cost estimate calculations of March 12, 2003. This results in a new reclamation cost of $116,051.54. This is roughly 1/3 the amount originally calculated. Of course, to make this lower bond amount possible the condition of the worst case situation must be redefined. That change is reflected in the new bond amount. But it also requires a condition on the permit that, at no time, shall Castle Concrete allow more than 2000 lineal feet of backwall exist in an unreclaimed condition. Castle has considered this hrnitation and believes that it is a reasonable and workable amount while still providing them with sufficient flexibility in the operation, Therefore, Castle Concrete agrees to having this limitation placed on the permitted plan. This change does not alter the method of reclamation or any details in the plan. It only reduces the amount of unreclaimed backwall that can exist at any one time. Small Sediment Control Basins: 11te current stormwater management plan (as well as the original) required that discharge of sediment be controlled in this fashion. That is, with small basins (ox sllt fencing for minor flow azeas) that reduce the velocity of the water prior to it leaving the disturbed land. 1n the past, this has worked well. This method will be applied in the future as well. In the fast two portions of the operation, all the discharge will be directed towazd the existing plant site. Discharge to the side of the quarry will not and cannot occur as it will be bounded by walls. Therefore, controlling discharge in the vicinity of the plant site is a convenient way of handling run off during the next several years. Once the operation moves into Area C this will not be possible because the land slopes to the south and southeast rather than the southwest toward the plant. At about where these two portions of the operation join there will be a divide that will form the crest of the excavation. This crest will be very nearly at the same location as the natural crest. As a result, runoff from Axea C will need to be handled in a somewhat different fashion than it will be handled while operating in Areas A and B.