Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />Sept 3, 08 <br />Daniels Pit <br />existing faces, assuming the Little Johnson and J Property are not mined, material would need to be pushed over the <br />face to the bottom of the pit. From there it would be spread along the face in layers and using some cut and fill, the <br />entire face backfilled. That basically is a double handling process, so for that a push distance of around 300 to 400 <br />feet might be appropriate. If the two additional areas are mined then material would already be in place at the <br />bottom of the face so it could just be pushed against the slope as well as some material at the top that could be <br />pushed over to join with the backfill placed on the lower part of the slope. In that case, push distances would <br />probably decline to about 150 to 200 or, sometimes perhaps 250 feet. I suspect, for a general working number, a <br />push distance of 200 feet would probably cover the situation well. So, for the very worst case situation (reclaiming it <br />as it is today) a push distance of about 350 feet should probably be used. For a post-proposed mining situation then <br />about a 200 foot push distance would seem to work. <br />It is important to note here a couple of situations regarding county concerns on these areas. First, over the years <br />there have been a few complaints from people south of Bradley Road regarding blowing sand from the southwestern <br />corner of the pit. The county has been informed that the new sediment basin should correct this problem, but <br />additional work may be needed to further reduce the problem of blowing sand during strong wind storms. The point <br />is that the southern faces of the sediment basin may need to be placed in final reclamation very soon to avoid strong <br />winds from picking up sand on those faces and blowing it across Bradley Road. So, if that occurs, then the backfill <br />costs for the southern perimeter would go away soon. This would be addressed after it is done. For now, of course, <br />those costs still need to be included. <br />Second, the Little Johnson Reservoir area has, as the county said, a "weird" zoning. It is zoned R4, which is a <br />zone that is no longer used. The R4 zone allows mining, but the plans for this area, when the zoning was established, <br />was for residential development. I know, on the floor of an old reservoir? Anyway, there are no plans to develop the <br />land, but as it stands no mining can occur in that area until it is rezoned and then included in the special use permit. <br />There is probably no greater difficulty doing this than doing any of the other special use permit, but it is a tortuous <br />pathway. <br />The importance of this to your current bond cost calculations is that I believe you should probably use the very <br />worst case situation rather than the worst case for full mine development. The very worst case situation would mean <br />reclaiming the existing faces as described above. This will produce a higher bond amount, but in light of the zoning <br />issues and special use permit issues that still need to be completed before the Little Johnson Reservoir or the <br />J Property can be mined, not to mention the ongoing groundwater remediation program, using the very worst case <br />situation would provide the best protection for the State. At this time, I don't think it would necessarily be a safe <br />assumption to base bonding costs on the Little Johnson and J Property mining being completed. Ultimately, they <br />probably will be done, but there is a long road to follow before that can be done. <br />If you have any questions, please call. <br />Sincerely, <br />COPY <br />Mark A. Heifner <br />cc: Mac Shafer