Laserfiche WebLink
MMRR Quarry, M-2004-067 <br />Response to Jan. 21 Adequacy Review <br />March 23, 2005 <br />Page 3 <br />layout and drainage planning under Exhibit C. This meeting provided the <br />basis for the engineering response to this adequacy issue, and review <br />standards and objectives that were agreed upon in this meeting are <br />restated as assumptions in the attached memo from Mr. McDermid. <br />These standards and objectives are further fulfilled by the requested <br />revisions to Exhibit C, enclosed for your review. <br />Generally addressing the adequacy comments, the applicant was asked to <br />provide description of the size, shape, and technical specifications for haul <br />roads, culverts, and various stormwater management features. We <br />believe most, or all, of these adequacy comments to be analogous to the <br />information required under Rule 6.3 for a Special 111 permit, where the <br />Mining Plan must include, pursuant to Rule 6.3.3(g), "[T]he dimensions of <br />any existing or proposed roads that will be used for the mining operations. <br />Describe any improvements necessary on existing roads and the <br />specifications to be used in the construction of new roads... Describe any <br />associated drainage and runoff conveyance structures to include sufficient <br />information to evaluate structure sizing." Rule 6.3.3, as applicable to <br />Special 111 permit applications also contains several other subparts, <br />particularly 6.3.3(1), that provide specific standards for the type of <br />information requested by the DMG in the MMRR Quarry adequacy review. <br />On the other hand, Rule 6.4, concerning Regular 112 applications and the <br />present case, does not appear to require specific engineering assessment <br />of drainage improvements. While we do not dispute the Division's request <br />for this information pursuant to the general purposes of the Reclamation <br />Act, we note that any deficiency in the initial preparation of Exhibit C may <br />stem from an apparent omission of the requested information from the <br />requirements of Rule 6.4.3. <br />Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 34-32.5-116(4)(b), states that, "If <br />earth dams are constructed to impound water, the formation of such <br />impoundments will not damage adjoining property or conflict with water <br />pollution laws, rules, or regulations of the federal government or the state <br />of Colorado or with any local government pollution ordinances." This <br />instruction is repeated in Construction Materials Rule 3.1.6 and we believe <br />it provides the basic standard for detailed evaluation of various drainage <br />features as requested by the DMG. The engineering assumptions set <br />forth in this document and agreed upon through our meeting with the DMG <br />create no new risk to adjacent property (and will, in fact, reduce the risk of <br />flash flooding for certain storm events). In addition, the applicant agrees <br />to conform to all other applicable laws concerning stormwater <br />management and water quality and has produced plans appropriate to this <br />commitment. <br />