PERMFILE111671 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Please provide a revised Exhibit F map with the complete and cortect information, as indicated above. EXHIBIT G (RULES 6.4.7(3). (4), and (5)): The Exhibit C narrative does not include responses to any of these rules. There is no estimate of the project water requirements, there is no assurance that there is but a single p~ source for project water although it is indicated that some water will be secured from the City of Walsenburg, and there is no commitment by the applicant in this Exhibit narrative to apply for a NPDES permit from the WQCD. Please provide a revised Exhibit G narrative that includes responses as indicated above. EXHIBIT H (Rule 6.4.8)): The Division acknowledges the recent receipt of a letter from the DOW solicited by the applicant and mentioned in this Exhibit;nartative. The DOW letter, however, recommends that a 300 foot buffer zone be "enforced" between riparian habitat and the mining operation. There is no such ~ commitment included in the Exhibit H narrative. 0 Since [he boundaries of the riparian habitat may be difficult to precisely define, please provide a revised Exhibit H narrative that includes a commitment to maintain a buffer zone having a plan width of at least 300 feet between the affected area and the southern bank of the Huerfano River. EXHIBIT L (RULE 6.4.12): The Division's estimate of the cost of reclaiming the proposed 35 acres of disturbance is attached. As can be seen, it varies in a number of respects from the estimate provided by the applicant with some task estimates being lower than the applicant's and some higher. However, the total bond amount considered by the Division as necessary to reclaim the site is significantly higher than the applicant's. The reasons for this as well as the assumptions made by the Division are as follows: 1) The applicant has proposed to limit his total disturbance at the site, at any one time, to 35 acres. In the mining plan, the applicant estimates that between IS and 20 acres of this disturbance will be excavated area and the remaining 15 acres will be stockpiles and processing equipment. The Division has utilized this breakdown in making its estimate. As indicated earlier in this review, the Division considers that as much as 20 acres of excavation may exist before backsloping/backfilling of the pit margins occurs, 2) The applicant has estimated [hat from 4 [0 8 inches of topsoil will be salvaged and then replaced as part of the reclamation effort. The Division has correspondingly assumed an average of 6 inches of topsoil will be salvaged, i.e. approximately 16,000 cu. yds., from 20 acres of excavated area. Using a swell factor of 1.125, this converts to 18.000 cu. yds. of topsoil to be subsequently spread. 3) The applicant has estimated that approzimately 5 feet of overburden overlie the gravel deposit. Subtracting 0.5 feet of overburden as being topsoil, the Division has assumed that the remaining 4.5 feet of overburden, i.e. approximately 145,000 cu. yds., will be removed and stockpiled prior to the mining of the 20 acre pit.. Using a swell factor of i.25, this convens to 181,500 cu. yds. Although the applicant did indicate that some p~' overburden would be used in the product mix, no estimate of this use was provided. Consequently, the Division has _,9v t'.~, assumed that all of this material would be returned to the pit as backfill. 4) Based on the applicant's estimate that approzimately IS acres of the 35 to be bonded would be for stockpiles, equipment, roads, etc., the Division included scarifying this essentially compacted area prior to seeding it. This was estimated to be done by the same dozer used for backfilling and topsoil spreading equipped with a ripper. 5} The Division's estimate for revegetating the site is for the entire 35 acres plus some slight additional area resulting from the sideslopes of the 20 acre pit. These costs are similar to the total of those made in the applicant's estimate. The costs include Division assumptions for (enilizing and mulching which the applicant apparently intends. The Division has not, at this point, assumed a SOi9o failure rate for the vegetation. 6) The Division's mobilization/demobilization costs are less than the applicant's and based on use of a single dozer with a ripper brought in from Pueblo. 7) In addition to these direct cost estimates, there are the required overhead, profit and management costs, as indicated on the summary sheet. In summary, the Division's preliminary estimate is that a financial wartanty totaling $184, 000.00 will be necessary to guarantee reclamation of the proposed 35 acres of mining related disturbance. EXHIBIT Q (RULE 6.4.17)): The Division acknowledges the evidence presented in the application that the Huerfano County Commissioners and the Board of Supervisors of the local SCD have received notices of the application; copies o(the "green cards" indicating receipt have been provided. Rule 1.6.2(I)(g), however, states that Proof of Notice may be made by either the return receipts of a cenified mailing or by proof of personal service. Therefore, the actual "green cards" themselves. not copies. must be provided as Proof of Notice.