PERMFILE72767 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTORS: Issues raised by objecting parties are listed below, along with the names of the objectors. The Division's response to objection issues follows. Issues are listed under the section ofthe Construction Materials Rules and Regulations to which they pertain. Issues that the Division believes are not within the jurisdiction of the Division or Boazd aze listed after the issues listed under the sections to which they pertain. A. ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD AND RAISED DURING THE INITIAL APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Application Exhibit D- Minine Plan: 1. "Prior to approval of this application, require SW TKO Joint Venture Partnership, LLC (SW TKO) to obtain Air Pollution and Water Quality Permits" (Georgia and Jerry Landrus; March 6, 2005). Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) Response- SW TKO Joint Venture, LLC. has committed to obtaining Air Pollution and Water Quality permits from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. It is State law that the Air Pollution Emission Notices are obtained prior to emitting fugitive dust. The Operator must obtain a discharge permit (NPDES) from the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment prior to any mine water dischazged from the site. 2. "In a letter dated September 27, 2004, from Civil Resources, LLC to SW TKO, it states that aggregate will likely be transported via conveyor to a processing plant located west of Highway 85 on the existing Lafarge property. Since the proposed pit and all processing facilities are on the east side of Highway 85, this movement of aggregate is not accounted for in the application. This must be defined and detailed plans for crossing this federal highway need to be presented."(Georgia and Jerry Landrus; March 6, 2005). Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) Response- The letter you are refemng to is the Slope Stability Analysis prepared by Civil Resources included in the original permit application. In the Division's adequacy letter ofMarch 8, 2005 requested additional information regazding the conveyor structure that would be installed over US Hwy 85. The applicant responded during adequacy that this was an incorrect statement and that there are no plans to construct a conveyor over US Hwy 85. This has been revised in the permit application. 3. "Paragraph (a) states that dewatering trenches will be excavated down to groundwater. Test hole logs indicate that groundwater was located at 15 feet to 25 feet down to the gravel It is assumed that the trenches will be dug on [he perimeter of the excavated area, and if so will the back slopes be at the 0.5 to 1 shown in paragraph (b), or will the trenches be dug with back-hoes or drag Tines and create even steeper slopes?" (Colorado Department of Transportation; March 26, 2005) Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) Response- The dewatering trenches will be dug on the inside of the mine toe of the slope as opposed to on the perimeter of the excavated area. The cross-section on the mining plan map depicts a graphic of the dewatering trench in relation to the excavated area. This is a standard method for dewatering a pit. 4. "Paragraph (b) states that mining face will be from nearly vertical to a 0.5:1 slope. Does this include the face along the excavation limits where clay lining back slopes are to be constmcted at a later date? If so, the map on sheet 3, mining plan map, shows 1:1 slopes, and [he detail of the open lake reclamation detail on sheet 7, the Reclamation Plan Map, shows that the compacted clay liner is placed against the sand and gravel at a 1:2 slope. Which slope is correct? The steeper the slopes the greater the possibility that they will erode back into the buffer zone prior to the clay being compacted against them." (Colorado Department of Transportation; March 26, 2005)