Laserfiche WebLink
o Exhibit T does NOT adequately document what needs to be done in the event of a spill <br /> of a toxic or hazardous substance, as required by Rule 3.1.13. <br /> o Exhibit T does not address the required emergency notification of a failure or imminent <br /> failure of any impoundment, embankment,stockpile or slope, as required by Rule S. <br /> Failure of an impoundment pond will pose a significant potential for danger to persons <br /> or properties in the Little Turkey Creek watershed below the quarry operations area . <br /> o Exhibit 6.5 did NOT provide a geotechnical evaluation of the geologic hazards in the <br /> vicinity of the affected lands to show that these areas would not be de-stabilized or <br /> exacerbated by mining or reclamation areas, as required by Rule 6.5 (1). <br /> o A number of reports from consultants indicate various actions that SHOULD be taken by <br /> Transit Mix or are RECOMMENDED to be taken by Transit Mix. However,the application <br /> does not clearly specify that these actions WILL be taken by Transit Mix. <br /> • 115 (4) (d)The proposed mining operation is contrary to the following laws or regulations of the <br /> State of Colorado: <br /> o The proposed mining operations will obstruct Little Turkey Creek Road,which is an <br /> ingress/egress easement for property owners within Eagles Nest. This contradicts <br /> Colorado law related to ingress/egress easements. <br /> o The proposed impoundment of water in sediment ponds may be contrary to Colorado <br /> water rights laws related to the impoundment of water within the Little Turkey Creek <br /> watershed. <br /> o The proposed access point of the new quarry road at Highway 115 is within a few <br /> hundred feet of Little Turkey Creek Road,which contradicts regulations of the state <br /> highway department related to distance between access points on Highway 115. <br /> • 115 (4) (e) The proposed mining operation will adversely affect the stability of Little Turkey <br /> Creek Road, which is a significant,valuable, and permanent manmade structure located within <br /> two hundred feet of the affected land. <br /> • 115 (4) (g) The proposed reclamation plan does not conform to the requirements of section 34- <br /> 32.5-116 (see items below). <br /> • 116 (a) Exhibit G does not adequately demonstrate that the water management structures,as <br /> currently designed,will prevent unauthorized release of pollutants to the surface drainage <br /> system. Test bores did not identify the presence of heavy metals within the proposed quarry <br /> area. However,test of a water well near the proposed quarry pits identified significant levels of <br /> lead. Lead and other heavy metals MAY therefore be present in the quarry area and would be <br /> excavated during mining operations. Release of these heavy metals into the watershed would <br /> pollute the surface drainage system. Nothing is mentioned in the application about testing of <br /> quarry material to confirm that no heavy metals are found during future excavation. <br /> • 116(b) Exhibit G has not adequately demonstrated that there will be no unauthorized release <br /> of pollutants to groundwater from fines stored within the quarry operation area, from fuel oils <br /> stored in the quarry operations area or from materials such as hydraulic fluids in vehicles used <br /> within the quarry operations area. <br /> • 116(c) Exhibits D and G have not adequately shown that all refuse will be disposed of in a <br /> manner that controls unsightliness or the deleterious effects of such refuse. The fines pile will <br /> be stored within the quarry operations area and will be clearly visible from properties within <br /> Eagles Nest. The failure of the impoundment pond associated with the fines pile may release <br />