Laserfiche WebLink
MLRB letter re: West~ifle Pit page 2 ~9 October 1982 <br /> <br />No revision in reclamation costs is anticipated. The reclamation <br />costs submitted with our original application were questioned as <br />being excessive. I submitted details of equipment, rates and hour- <br />ly requirements in support of the low cost range shown. In so far <br />as parcels A and C are to be left relatively undisturbed except <br />for the pond and that intelligent mining can provide pond slopes <br />meeting reclamation standards, no significant costs should incur <br />from the addition of these areas. The costs to be incurred in re- <br />placement planting due to premature clearing have not been included <br />as reclamation costs. These are estimated to run approximately <br />$1,200.00 and are considered expences to mitigate for the excess- <br />ive and premature clearing. The new limits of gravel extraction <br />are much better defined by natural boundaries, by leaving areas of <br />mature tree masses or individual mature cottonwoods, or by blend- <br />ing in with some of the natural riparian growth. Less expence should <br />occur in transition areas and pond edges. Placing stumps in the pond <br />bottom at the end of mining would not materially effect reclamation <br />costs. I feel the reclamation costs as originally submitted are <br />stillvalid for the amended application. <br />I hope this reply satisfies the boards requirements. If you re- <br />quire revisions to exhibit 2 to show proposed temporary ditches I <br />will gladly supply it. However, I feel that the above should sat- <br />isfactorily explain plans. If you have any additional questions I <br />will answer them soonest. <br />st <br />E <br />cc: R. White <br />