Laserfiche WebLink
provided by the applicant, depicts the location of creeks, drainages, and springs on and within 200 feet of the <br />affected azea. There aze 5 natural springs on-site as shown on Exhibit C-2 and Smith and Egeria Creeks run <br />along the southern portion of the property as shown on C-2. The location of wells is noted on Exhibit C-3. <br />7. "King Mountain has not submitted a statement showing how it will protect against pollution of surface and <br />groundwater as a result of its dust suppression and mnoff from disturbed azeas." (Porzak, Browning & <br />Bushong, LLP; June 12, 2006) <br />Division's Response- Much of the surrounding site naturally drains away from the mine edges. Surface <br />water that is encountered will be contained within the pit boundaries and no dischazge is expected, The <br />shallowest point of the reclaimed site is approximately 10 feet below natural grade. The applicant states <br />that no ponds or wash water will be necessary for the operation of the processing plant or asphalt plant, and <br />a concrete plant is not expected at this site (Banks & Gesso Adequacy Response letter dated January 14, <br />2005). If water needs to leave the site, or is a concrete plant, wash plant settling ponds and a discharge <br />point are needed at some point in the future, the operator has committed to obtaining a discharge pemut <br />from the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment and revising the mining and <br />reclamation plan in form of a Technical Revision. In addition, the applicant states that there will be no fool <br />tanks located on site. If the applicant decides to place a fuel tank on site in the future, a Technical Revision <br />will be submitted to the Division. <br />King Mountain identified an azea on the east side of the permit where storm water could potentially flow <br />out of the pit down the existing drainages. King Mountain will provide temporary erosion control <br />measure, in the form of diversion ditches, silt fences and straw bales within and along the pit edges, to <br />ensure that all storm water is diverted into the pit. These measures will remain in place unfil slopes in <br />these azeas aze reseeded and stabilized, and then will be removed or regazded per the proposed reclamation <br />plan. <br />In terms of impacts to ground water, King Mountain commits to not exposing ground water during the <br />mining operation. The applicant will provide 12 months of baseline data prior to mining below the <br />existing pit floor at 8550 feet elevation. If seasonal high groundwater levels aze determined to be well <br />below 8550 feet, the operator intends to mine deeper but will stay at least 5 feet above the seasonal high <br />water level. If the operation encounters ground water, the operator will immediately backfill and cease <br />operations within 5 vertical feet of encountering ground water. Ground water levels will be monitored <br />monthly for three years from each of the 5 monitoring wells, and then quarterly thereafter for the life of <br />mine. All monitoring data will be submitted to the Division in the Annual Reclamation Report. <br />8. "In violation of Rule 6.4.7(3) King has not provided an estimate of flow rates and annual volumes for the <br />development, mining and reclamation phases of the project " (Porzal~ Browning & Bushong, LLP; June <br />12, 2006) <br />Division's Response- The applicant projects that 4,000 to 15,000 gallons per day will be required for dust <br />control. Ground water will not be exposed during the mining operation and no ponds or wash water will <br />be necessary for the operation of the processing plant or asphalt plant. <br />9. King_Mountain's Prior Performance Should also be Considered: "King Mountain's prior performance as <br />a gravel pit operator in Routt county indicates that it is not reliable...a long term entrance to the gravel pit <br />which is in an even more dangerous location than the former entrance.....`maintaining' the county road <br />with the proper permits...history of difficulty maintaining fences and keeping its livestock on the <br />property.... failed to timely file King Mountain's 2005 annual report or the related annual fee." (Hogan & <br />Hanson; June 12, 2006 & James WM. Stovall, P.C.; June 12, 2006) <br />Division's Response - In accordance with C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4), the boazd or ofTice shall not deny a permit <br />except for certain circumstances which include (a) an incomplete application and financial warranties have not <br />been provided, (b) the applicant has not paid the required fee, (c) the application is contrary to the laws or <br />regulations of this article, (d) application is to the contrary to the laws or regulation of this state or United <br />6 <br />