PERMFILE45861 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• ponds, although [he extent and location of said ponds was not specified. This is in direct conflict with the second paragraph of "Water diversion and impoundments" of Exhibit D. Further stipulate that no reagent use is planned per Mr. Phillips (Rules 3.1.5(1 I) and 3.1.7.6(b)(ii)(B)). This site is to be .t dry mining operation, and as such, it is expected that no water will be exposed at the site. However, if retention ponds are to be built on [he site, a map of [heir location, plans for their reclamation, and disposition of the water must be included in this application, in accordance with the above cited Rules. During discussions with the Applicant, it was established that the groundwater table is several hundred Feet below the surface of the site; however, written documentation of this would be welcome in order to settle this issue, in accordance with Rule 6.4.7(2)(x) of the Construction ivlaterials Rules and Regulations. 3) Minine Plan and Mining Plan Mao. Both the maps and the written portions of the application need to delineate the actual acreage mined, disturbed & undisturbed (Rule 6.4.3(d)). Verify that [he differential volume between the existing and reclaimed topography, as contoured by the applicant, actually provides the basis for the raw cut and fill volume calculations on sheets 3/4 and 4/4 (Exhibits C). Upon examination of the maps in question, it was assumed that the entire site would be disturbed up to the permit boundary. If this is not the case, the Operator should explicitly state this, in accordance with the above cited rule. The raw cu[ and fill volume calculations will be done by the Division during the calculation of the financial warranty, based on the final information provided by the applicant. Reference Exhibit C, sheet ~/a, FLOOD PLAIN, DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER QUALITY, Section 8, both the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in their letter dated I-27-00 and Mr. Steve Gardner/Arapahoe County Division of Engineering in the Arapahoe County meeting of 6-26-00, specifically addressed preserving the unnamed tributary and the need for conformance with the "Coyote Run and Upper Box E:Ider Creek Outfall Systems Planning Study" (OSP). Neither the description nor the maps in Exhibit C acknowledge the existence of the OSP, address two-year Flow events or describe/show the location of the unnamed tributary (Rule 6.2.1(2)(e)). If a regular tributary or creek crosses the site, it should be included in the application, along with plans [o preserve it or return it to its original slope, complete with hydrological models which would demonstrate that there would be no increase in erosion or hydraulic volume from changes [o [he creek bed. Please addre:>s this issue, in accordance with Rule 6.4.3(b) of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations. 4) East-[o-Wes[ Mining Progression. Pursuant to conversations with Steve Gardner/Engineering Division Arapahoe County, Li~:a Moore/DOW and Diann Gese/Geologist-Environmental Scientist, employ an east- to-west mining progression to mitigate impact to wildlife, control erosion and minimize potential siltation to adjacent waterways (Rules 3.1.5(3), 3.1.8 and 6.4.4(e)(iii)). Revise the Mining Plan Map (Exhibit C) as well as the language of the Mined Land Questionnaires; sheet ~/4, MINING, EXCAVATION AND LAND LEVELING OPERATIONS, Section 4, paragraph 5 (Exhibit C), and the Reclamation Plan (Exhibit E) to reflect awes[-to-east (sic) mining progression to mitigate impact to wildlife & w limit soil disturbance. !n discussions with the Applicant the proposed change in mining direction was mentioned, and changes to the mining plan to accommodate this new progression will be forthcoming prior to the decision date.