Laserfiche WebLink
Environment,Inc. Page 8 <br /> Ellicott Sand& Gravel LLC -M-2017-063 <br /> Adequacy response 01 <br /> b. Commit to getting the necessary well permit and water replacement plan for exposed <br /> groundwater. <br /> Ellicott Sand & Gravel LLC will commit to obtaining any necessary well permits and a <br /> replacement water plan for exposed ground water if needed. <br /> 16. Depth of mining vs. groundwater: The apparent discrepancy between well depths and <br /> groundwater elevation is alluded to in the first and second paragraphs on page 19. The <br /> first paragraph states there are five wells completed at less than 70 feet. The second <br /> paragraph states 24 wells are over 80 feet deep, but does not fully address the five wells <br /> completed at less than 70 feet below grade. Please address the water level in the <br /> remaining four wells that are completed at a depth less than the proposed 70-foot mining <br /> depth. <br /> The landowner has explained that those wells are along Big Spring Creek where the water <br /> table is a little higher then along Black Squirrel Creek. The five wells in question are east <br /> of Baggett Road with the exception of an irrigation well in Section 29. The Upper Black <br /> Squirrel drainage board asked Ellicott Sand & Gravel LLC to stay at least 10 feet above <br /> the ground water table. We revised the text on pages 19 & 24 and the maps to show this <br /> 10 foot separation as they suggested. The commitment has been made to stay 10 feet or <br /> more above the groundwater table and if we find it is shallower along Baggett Road then a <br /> Technical Revision will be filed at that time to revise the mining depth and adjust the <br /> Reclamation Plan and maps to show the new mine floor elevation. <br /> 17. Affecting Drainages: The end of the third paragraph on page 19 states the plan is to <br /> maintain a 50-foot setback from the top of the bank of both ephemeral drainages in order <br /> to prevent these drainages from being affected by mining. Given the proposed pits are 70 <br /> feet deep and in the floodplain, the DRMS anticipates during a significant flood, flood <br /> waters will erode and headcut the material in a 50-foot setback, allowing the pit(s) to <br /> capture flows in the ephemeral drainages. Pursuant to Rule 3.1.6, please provide a scour <br /> analysis or armored bank protection designs to ensure this does not occur. <br /> As noted in response to question 2, we have increased the setback to 150 feet and plan to <br /> install armoring on both banks along the river in accordance with the Urban Drainage <br /> Guidelines. Text has been added to the Mining Plan explaining how this will be done as <br /> mining progresses. A Bank Protection Plan is also attached for the Divisions review. <br /> 6.4.8 EXHIBIT H—Wildlife Information <br /> 18. CPW Declined to Comment: The first paragraph on page 23 indicates Colorado Parks and <br /> Wildlife (CPW) declined to provide a wildlife statement as they do not provide the <br /> service as outlined in Rule 6.8.4(l) of Minerals Rules and Regulations of the Colorado <br /> Mined Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials. Are you <br /> able to provide documentation for this response? <br />