Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11.) As previously described, the reconstructed Lupton Bottom Ditch alignment is not <br />contained on a lateral berm, but on a dike reconstructed at near the same elevation <br />as the pre-mine topography. The dike is parallel, not perpendicular, to any flood-flow <br />produced by the Platte. The reconstructed entrance and exit points for the Lupton <br />Bottom Ditch have to match the current flow-elevations of the ditch in order to pass <br />flows with no erosion. <br />Also contained within Attachment "E" is a copy of an aerial photograph showing the <br />proposed permit area/site in relation to the location and flow of the South Platte <br />River. As can be seen, the potentially erosive "nick-point" of the river occurs well to <br />the south of the southeast corner of the permit area on an adjacent property. Even if <br />the river were to flood with any sort of erosive action onto the north bank of this "nick- <br />point" area, the flow would progress north, parallel to any permanently-constructed <br />features proposed by this operation. Existing homes, outbuildings, and the oil and <br />gas collection tanks "permanently" exist in this floodplain, and they are not <br />constructed above the elevation of the floodwaters. <br />12.) The legend has been corrected to show that water wells in the vicinity of the <br />proposed permit area and on the proposed permit area are not necessarily alluvial, <br />but are listed as simply "water wells'. The Parker well and well located to the north <br />of the northeast corner of the permit area, on the Hill property, are both bedrock <br />wells. <br />The Colorado State Engineer requires, as part of the application for a Temporary <br />Substitute Supply Plan for a mining operation, that all registered or permitted wells <br />within 600 ft. of the proposed mining limits be shown on a map, with the <br />corresponding permit numbers, and that well-consent forms be sent to the owners of <br />those wells. The only wells within the 600-ft. limit that could be found in the state <br />records as being permitted or registered are shown within the Substitute Supply <br />Plan, submitted with the application in December. These wells are owned and <br />operated by the Parkers. and. the Goldens. This does not mean that the other two <br />offsite wells are illegal, it is just that no data could be found on them. However, they <br />must be shown on the Exhibit C, as they are "significant", etc. man-made structures <br />within 200 ft. of the permiUaffected area boundary. All wells are located outside the <br />proposed slurry wall, including the well owned by L.G. Everist, Inc. on the permit <br />area, so no negative effects caused by de-watering of the mining area will be <br />experienced by any well shown on Exhibit C. <br />The_Parker's, Hill's, and Golde_n's are aware of the proposed mining operation and <br />~- ~ are in the process of signing waivers as part of the "significant", etc. man-made <br />structure issue within 200 ft. of the permiUaffected area boundary, as described <br />under 14.). <br />13.) Duly noted. <br />14.) Prior to the Division's recommendation of approval or denial of this application to the <br />Board, scheduled for March 27, 2000, the applicant anticipates having notarized and <br />5 <br />