PERMFILE109181 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 1, 1980 Mined Land Reclamation Mr. James B. McArdle Page 4 Exhibit E, Item 11 -The reclamation map, Exhibit F, has been revised to reflect two-foot contour intervals. Exhibit G - The applicant is currently in the process of negotiating water rights and working with the water commissioner and the district water engineer on an augmentation plan. The effects on surface water systems will be negligible since the diversion merely cuts off a horseshoe and the drainage area to the sediment pond is very p.~,.~.~ small. Test pit results indicate the water table to be approximately 13 feet below the aggregate deposit, it is therefore not anticipated that any effect will derive to the ground water system as a result of the project. Exhibit J - Mr. Ron Miller of the Soil Conservation Service office in Greeley estimates the carrying capacity to be seven/AUM acres for fair range condition. Due to heavy grazing, range condition at the mine site is currently poor, indicating a probable carrying capacity in excess of seven acres/AUM. Exhibit L, Item 1 - The discussion of classification of disturbances should be an item for discussion at our conference. Exhibit L, Item 2 - A floating bond is requested only for recognition of the fact that the entire disturbance area will not be worked concurrently and that a substantial portion of the area will be reclaimed as the operation progresses, with the exception of the maturation of ground cover. This also should be an item for discussion in our conference. Exhibit L, Item 3 - We find the cost figures which you have calculated for reclamation to be totally inappropriate based on the areas indicated on the mining plan map and on the schedule submitted with Exhibit D indicating provisional pit development. Item A - Based on the information in Exhibit D it is not anticipated that any more than 100,000 cubic yards of overburden and topsoil would be required to be replaced at any one time. Based on haul distances and accepted current reference materials we feel that cost will be only two-thirds of the cost per yard adopted in your calculations. Practi- cally speaking, no more than 50,000 cubic yards of material will be stockpiled for replacement in any one quarter. That brings our soil replacement cost at any point in time to no more than $10,000. Item B - Along the same lines, soil preparation at any one time should not exceed 30 acres, the cost of