Laserfiche WebLink
contour ". Did the total material calculation under backfilling of slopes to 3H: 1V in <br />Exhibit "L" used these assumptions? Please explain. <br />5) It is the understanding of the Division; the operator will salvage all available top <br />soil /growth medium and commits to placing an average of 4 inches of the top soil over <br />the affected area. <br />6) Under water general information the operator states "Although rolling topography is <br />described above, discharge from the pit floor to the Rock Creek Valley will still occur ". <br />Please refer to comments regarding affected drainage leaving the site under Exhibits <br />" D " & " E " . <br />Exhibit "G" Water Information 6.4.7 <br />1) It is the understanding of the Division, that the proposed operation does not anticipate <br />intercepting ground water during the mining operation. Were there any test holes <br />conducted to verify these findings based on the depth of mining? Please explain. <br />Exhibit "1" Reclamation Cost 6.4.12 <br />1) Under Exhibit "L" the operator provided a detailed cost estimate using aspects A, B, C <br />& D. Under the current amended submittal, under aspect "A" active mining and side <br />slopes(1 /2 H :1V) to be backfilled at 3H 1V, graded top soiled and seeded 2000 ft x 80ft <br />(average).The total calculated cubic yard is estimated at 69,000 CY. When the original <br />amendment was submitted the active mining face side slopes (!/2 H:1V) to be <br />backfilled at 3H:1V graded and seeded was 4,000ft x 90ft average. The total cubic yard <br />to be backfill the slopes to 3H: 1V was 202,000 cubic yards. The Division is aware of <br />the changes from 4000 ft x 90 ft VS 2000 ft X 80 ft. Why did the values change under <br />the current amended application? Please explain. <br />Exhibit "S "- Permanent Man -made Structures 6.4.19 <br />1) Under the Exhibit the operator listed 1) Charter Oak Ranch Road, 2) Fence and related <br />structures and 3) Unimproved road as the only manmade structures within 200 feet of <br />the proposed amended area. The operator states, "Schmidt Construction Company <br />believes that the mining operation as proposed will not adversely affect any of the <br />permanent manmade structures located within 200 feet of the affected area. <br />However, the applicant has provided evidence of agreement for compensation with <br />the United States Government Fort Carson Reservation. In the event of damage to <br />roads, gates fences, or other structures within 200 feet. What about the agreement <br />with owners of Charter Oak Ranch Road? Please explain. <br />2) The Division has forwarded you the timely comment received from El Paso County on <br />Wednesday November 9, 2011 regarding the charter Oak Ranch Road. <br />