2011-07-20_REPORT - M1988044 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: M1988044
• IBM Index Class Name: REPORT
• Doc Date: 7/20/2011
• Doc Name: Annual Report
• From: Mark A. Heifner
• To: DRMS
• Permit Index Doc Type: Annual Fee/Report
• Email Name: JLE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Disturbance Category Inventory for 2011
(Corrected Format July 25, 2008)
Description of Land Category
acres
Line 1
Total amount of land bonded (Bonded Boundary - including
south lowland)
500
Line 2
Land area actually disturbed in Bonded Boundary (Includes
mining and processing areas plus any stage of reclamation
that has not been released from bond.)
230.03
Line 3
Land bonded but undisturbed (Line 1 minus Line 2)
269.97
Line 4
Bonded land contained in roads (only includes roads that
will remain after reclamation)
0
Line 5
Bonded land seeded but not released from bond
134.05
Line 6
Total excluded land (Line 4 plus Line 5)
134.05
Line 7
Land Board Affected Land (Line 2 minus Line 6)
95.98
Line 8
Total land allowed in Land Board disturbance category
(this is a fixed value)
150.00
Line 9
Additional disturbance allowed in Land Board disturbance
limitation (Line 8 minus Line 7)
54.02
Line 10
Enter the smaller of Line 3 or Line 9
54.02
Status report for 2009
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED: No unusual or unexpected geologic
conditions were encountered in the last year. Deposits continued to be located using backhoe pits at
locations that appeared to be likely deposits. Sometimes it showed good sand, other times it showed
nothing. This is very much as it has been in the past.
HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED: No groundwater was encountered in any
of the mining pits operated in the past year. Flows in Coal Creek, even during the heavier rain events
in the spring and early summer of 2011 (as of July 12), did not produce significant flows.
On the whole, moisture has been below normal over the last 18 months and this may have
lowered the water table. Influence on the riparian corridor appears to be slight. This is probably
because of whatever flows did occur were held back so the drainage was slower allowing surface
flows to percolate into the sands in the riparian corridor and thereby helping to maintain the volume
held in the riparian water table. Furthermore, increased vegetation cover on the uplands that feed into
the riparian corridor functions to attenuate peak flows so more water is retained on site rather than
just running down the stream and being lost to vigorous, erosive stream flows. Put simply, the
improved management approach on the property is reaping very significant benefits in the hydrologic
balance.
due July 15, 2010 Page 4 of 13