2008-10-17_PERMIT FILE - M2008017

• Permit No: M2008017
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 10/17/2008
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review Response
• From: J&T Consulting, Inc.
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: MAC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Broken Arrow Investments, LLC Derr Pit, Adequacy Review Comment Responses, File No. M-2008-017 10117108
-9-
Response:
The reclamation plan map has been revised to show the final land use for each
portion of the affected lands. Please refer to the revised Exhibit F, and the alternate
Exhibit F.
28. As required by Rule 6.4.10(1)(a), please provide descriptions of present
vegetation types, which include quantitative estimates of cover and height for
the principal species. In addition, please include the relationships of present
vegetation to soil types.
Response:
The vegetation information has been revised to provide the types and descriptions of
present vegetation. The estimates of cover and height of the principal species are
also provided. The relationships of the vegetation and soils types are discussed in
the revised Exhibit J. Please refer to the revised Exhibit J.
29. The applicant has indicated that they will post the financial warranty in phases
as mining progress. The cost of the slurry wall has been broken down and
included in the reclamation costs for the individual phases. The Division
requires that the entire cost of the slurry wall is posted up front, rather than
posting it in phases.
Response:
Per our meeting on October 3, 2008 we discussed the approach to the posting of the
financial warranty in phases. We believe that the Division should not require bonding
of the entire slurry wall up front as the actual costs that might be incurred if the
applicant were to default during the phasing would be much less than the
reclamation that would be completed to keep the mine in compliance. As an example
the slurry wall if constructed would be in place prior to the mining commencing in
Phase 2. The slurry wall would then be tested per the State Engineer's Office (SEO)
regulations and guidelines to determine if it will meet the SEO's performance
standards. Mining would commence in Phase 2 during this testing. The actual costs
to reclaim Phase 2 during the time frame for testing the slurry wall would be much
less than the total cost of the slurry wall if the applicant defaulted and the mine was
closed. We calculated the bond for Phase 2 to include the cost of a slurry wall to
surround the Phase 2 boundary only for that phase which we believe is reasonable.
Realistically if the applicant were to default at any time during Phase 2 or subsequent
phases it may be cheaper to find fill dirt and reclaim the open pit by hauling in and
placing fill. Please refer to the revised Exhibit L for revisions to the bond calculations.
30. The applicant's proposed cost of $5/sq ft for slurry wall construction is not
acceptable because slurry wall costs increase with depth. Please amend the
cost of the slurry wall using the following unit costs:
0 to 50ft: $3/sq ft
51 to 70 ft: $4/sq ft
> 71 ft: $16/sq ft
Response:
We have revised the costs in the revised financial warranty calculations. Please refer
to the revised Exhibit L.
V 140O W 122nd Avenue -Suite 120 • Westminster CO 80234 -Ph: 303-457-0735 • Fax: [phone]