Laserfiche WebLink
1 T <br /> Ducray Pit#2 <br /> Page 2 of 8 <br /> after reclamation; normal 3:1 slope leveling; normal storm water retention controls; <br /> and normal obtaining of permits from regulatory agencies. <br /> The application needs to specify for how many years the site is going to be <br /> monitored for acceptable re-vegetation and for adequate weed control. The <br /> application needs to specify for how long the Division will be monitoring the site to <br /> ensure the reclamation is working as planned and is not being altered by other <br /> activities such a additional construction or other alteration to the reclamation by the <br /> land owner. <br /> The application claims that"Slopes were re-contoured to a 3:1 or flatter or until <br /> they were deemed stabile by Geotechnical engineer" under 6.3.3 (f). The applicant <br /> did some slope leveling on October 30, 2018 without a permit. A Geotechnical <br /> Engineer (Michael A. Berry, P. E. of Huddleston- Berry) "conducted site <br /> reconnaissance on November 16th 2018". Slopes could not be" re-contoured to a <br /> 3:1 or flatter and until they were deemed stabile by Geotechnical engineer"when a <br /> Geotechnical engineer was not onsite while the work was being performed. <br /> Furthermore,the Division ruled the study from Huddleston-Berry inadequate. The <br /> slopes in the Southeast corner of the site next to the Southeast entry into the <br /> ephemeral drainage have not been contoured to a 3:1. This extraction area has not <br /> been contoured at all. These slopes need to be contoured to 3:1. The application <br /> states, "The slopes and excavated areas are consistent with land-owner request". <br /> This contradicts the applicant's claim that slopes were re-contoured to 3:1 or flatter. <br /> Exhibit E Mining Plan 2 in the application also contradicts the 3:1 claim as well <br /> when it states slopes are 1:1.5 in the southern area. This is an area that was <br /> excavated by Martinez Western Constructors during the period 3-11-2018 thru <br /> 3-17-2018, no slope leveling has been done, and the area was excluded from the <br /> maps provided in the application. <br /> The mining changed the ephemeral drainage. The preexisting drainages had natural <br /> channels that were removed. Drainages enter from both the Southeast and from the <br /> Southwest. The applicant did not identify or even consider the significant drainage <br /> that enters from the Southwest for adequate storm water retention. The applicant <br /> claims borrow materials were removed from "0-3' in depth and from 0-4' in depth" <br /> under 6.3.3 (f). Air photos taken by the City of Grand Junction on March 26, 2018 <br /> just after the extraction, show otherwise (See attached 3 air photos). The proposed <br /> storm water retention controls in the application are inadequate for the size of the <br /> drainage,and the impacts created to the drainage by the mining, including <br /> additional runoff created from the asphalt millings applied without permit to 22 Y2 <br /> Road and to the landowner's driveway from entrance to home. Both 22 Y2 Road and <br /> the driveway were affected by the mining and need to be included in the permit <br /> boundary. The downstream landowners do not want silt to be pushed onto their <br /> properties because of inadequate storm water retention. New channels replacing <br /> those destroyed by the mining, need to be developed and armored with rock to <br /> prevent future damage. In addition a large sediment pond of adequate size needs to <br />