Laserfiche WebLink
• Monument View Gravel Pit <br />FILE #: M-2000-032 <br />SUMMARY RESPONSE TO STATE COMMENTS <br />DATED ]une 16, 2000 <br />Question ,#/ 9 (Part 4J - It is assumed that the retention pond wi// be rec/aimed aher estab/ishment <br />of vegetation across the rec/amation site. /s this correct, or is the retention pond to be a permanent <br />feature. <br />RESPONSE: The retention pond is required to remain in order to comply with the City of <br />Grand ]unction requirements for the Conditional Use Permit. Assuming the site is <br />eventually developed for commercial use, the retention pond will be required for <br />stormwater runoff. <br />Question ,4`/ 9 (Part 5J - P/ease remove the reference to the Persigo wastewater treatment foci/ity <br />from page B. <br />RESPONSE: Reference has been deleted. <br />Question 22 -The Division wi// ca/cu/ate rec/amation cost within the net few days and forward it to <br />you for review. The estimate wi// inc/ude dewatering costs For the pit. <br />RESPONSE: Accepted. <br />Question 23 -Your response still indicates that the notice was delivered to the Mesa County <br />Conservation Service. P/ease verify that this notice was actua//y received by the Mesa Soi/ <br />Conservation District. <br />RESPONSE: The notice was received by, and signed by, Mr. Preston Thornburg. Mr. <br />Thornburg is the District Manager for the Mesa Soil Conservation District. <br />Question 24 -The damage /iabi/ity waiver agreement with Grand Va//ey Power is no! signed by <br />Martin Azcarraga. P/ease sign and re-submit. <br />RESPONSE: The signed agreement has been provided with this document. <br />Question 24 (Part 2J -The engineering demonstration is not adequate to demonstrate that the <br />spedfied permanent man-made structures will not be damaged by the mining operation. The <br />engineering demonstration must specify the maximum distance that afai/ure can occur at this site <br />under saturated conditions. /nc/ude a buffer zone around a//structures, far which a damage <br />agreement has not been submitted, that is adequate to ensure these structures wi//not be damaged <br />by the mining operations, shou/d the potentia/maximum fai/ure occur. <br />RESPONSE: The analysis has been revised to require a 100' buffer along the North, <br />South, and West Permit boundary locations. The maximum depth of the mining is <br />expected to be 32', therefore, at a 3:1 slope, 96' of horizontal separation will provide for <br />a safe slope condi[ion. <br />RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. PAGE 3 OF 3 <br />S[z[e Comment ResponseN2.doc <br />