Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c) the total area to be involved in the operation, including the area to be mined and the area of <br />affected lands. <br />d) the proposed reclamation plan states that there are no buildings on the affected land. Does <br />this mean that the existing buildings will not be included in the affected land area? Be <br />aware, that buildings and/or structures may remain on the affected land after reclamation if <br />such buildings or structures will not conflict with the post-mining land use and the <br />structures conform to local building and zoning codes (Rule 3.1.11). <br />l0. Rule b.4.12 - Exhibit L -Reclamation Costs -The applicant must include estimated costs to <br />reclaim the access roads. As noted above, the access roads will require some type of <br />reclamation. Since the roads will not be used for mining in the future, the safety berms will <br />~" no longer be required so they can be removed. Also, in order to minimize sediment transport <br />°;~ along the roadway, water bazs (or some other method) should be installed at various locations <br />' . ~ on the roads to divert runoff from reaching the South Arkansas River. <br />r i' <br />11. Rule 6.5 - Geotechnical Stability Exhibit -this Exhibit requires geotechnical evaluations of <br />all geologic hazards that have the potential to affect any proposed impoundment, slope, <br />embankment, highwall or waste pile within the affected area. The applicant submitted copies <br />of letters from Charles M. Mallette, Registered Professional Engineer (Colorado #8054), <br />which outlined potential stability problems within the affected land azea. Mr. Mallette feels <br />the limestone area may be "somewhat unstable" during mining operations. However, the <br />sloped areas will be stable after they aze reclaimed since the slope gradient will be 3:1 or less. <br />Outslopes at the stockpile area will be graded to 3:1 or less slopes so they will remain stable. <br />The dolomite azea appears to be the most unstable quarry area. In the original permit (M- <br />1996-071), the permittee submitted detailed information regarding the hazardous geologic <br />setting in this part of the quarry and proposed to mitigate the potential problems by diverting <br />upgradient runoff and blasting all the vertical highwalls at the end of mining activities. The <br />permittee submitted detailed cross-sections of the dolomite deposit, a detailed geologic rnap <br />of the known faults in the proposed mining area and a detailed narrative of past landslide <br />problems in this area. Obviously, there are potential stability problems in and around the <br />dolomite quarry area which must be addressed with something more than just a letter from <br />Mr. Mallette. <br />In addition, since blasting is part of the proposed mining or reclamation plan, the applicant <br />shall demonstrate through appropriate blasting, vibration, geotechnical, and structural <br />engineering analyses, that off-site areas will not be adversely affected by blasting (Rule <br />6.5(4)). <br />This is kind of a lengthy adequacy letter. However, the items listed above need to be addressed in <br />order to comply with the minimum requirements of the Act/Rules. <br />Keep in mind that the current decision due date is set for January 18, 2001. If you cannot <br />adequately respond to this adequacy letter, or a subsequent adequacy letter, by the January 18, <br />2001 due date, you must either request an extension of the due date or waive your right to a 90 <br />day and 120 day decision. Otherwise, if the above noted items are not adequately addressed, the <br />