Laserfiche WebLink
Page 6 . • <br />mountain and if there is essentially no input from the top of the mountain (quartzite), then where <br />does the water come from? <br />The large amphitheater that forms the south side of the crest of Table <br />Mountain contains a great deal of rough topography and a large number of small closed basins <br />where rainwater and snowmelt tend to accumulate. It appears that the support for this main <br />spring and perhaps all the other little seeps and wet spots comes from moisture accumulated in <br />this amphitheater. <br />Many of the low spots are probably well down into the Dakota sandstone <br />and some possibly connect to the Morrison formation. It is difficult to tell for sure because there <br />is such a deep layer of rubble throughout the amphitheater. However, because this area exhibits <br />slow drainage (even no drainage in some places) and is large compared to the more impervious <br />quartzite on the top of the mountain, it stands to reason that the water for the spring probably is <br />derived from seepage in the amphitheater portion of the mountain. To some extent this would be <br />supported by runoff from the top of the mountain, thus, as stated in the plan, the need to make <br />sure in the final topography that the mined area that has historically drained into the <br />amphitheater continues to drain into that geomorphic structure. That primarily applies, however, <br />to Phase II and not Phase I. Phase I does not and never has drained into the amphitheater. It drains <br />to the south and to the west, well away from the amphitheater. <br />Many of the little seeps and wet spots seem to be at the base of large piles of <br />quartzite and sandstone rubble left from the erosion of the top of the mountain. As these tend to <br />dry up by mid to late summer these are probably supported by precipitation on the rock piles <br />rather than a generalized groundwater that apparently supports the main spring. However, these <br />seeps and wet spots sometimes exhibit enough duration in wetness to support seasonal <br />hydrophytic vegetation and marginal hydric soil development. Therefore these could be <br />considered very small wetlands. Few cover more than a few tens of square feet and produce no <br />outflow of water into any drainages except after big thunderstorms. <br />Reclamation Costs (Exhibit L) - <br />Concern A: Cost of upgrading the haul road. <br />Response: In our opinion, the cost of upgrading the haul road is irrelevant to the <br />reclamation costs. First, except for those portions within the permit area, about two thirds of the <br />roadway, in our opinion, is not affected land for reasons previously stated. Second, the roadway <br />will not be reclaimed, except within the quarry itself, and therefore the reclamation cost is zero. <br />Bonding covers the cost to reclaim the site, not to develop the site. The cost of reclaiming <br />roadways in the quarry is included in the quarry reclamation cost as reclaiming the roadways is <br />not a separate operation. <br />Concern x Remaining 1:1 slopes not needing backfill. <br />Response: Oops, sorry about this. This statement can be interpreted in two ways. <br />The way you interpreted it is not the way it was intended. There will not be any walls left at a 1:1 <br />slope. Let me explain how these calculations were done and where the misunderstanding is. <br />In the "Backfilling unfilled highwalls" box the first step was to estimate the <br />worst case (end of mining) situation. That is a 1:1 slope with a 27.5' mean height before any <br />backfilling is done. The next line shows the total cross-sectional area of an assumed condition of a <br />