Laserfiche WebLink
5. The intent of the writer is to portray the affected land and permit land boundaries as <br />one and the same terminating at the eastern flowing drainage along the north boundary of <br />the permit azea. The drainage channel will not be disturbed, however disturbance may <br />encroach fairly close to this boundary via berming or regrading of the area to facilitate <br />drainage of the storm flows into the pit area where disturbed while isolating the north <br />drainage channel from any pit related influence. The extreme NE corner of the site may <br />be utilized for stockpiling or access to CR 2 some time in the future. This may be twenty <br />years in the future as the mine plan matures and was included in the affected land <br />boundaries to facilitate a TR sometime in the future. Regazdless, watershed analysis <br />assumed 138 acres of potential watershed including the affected land acreage, 350' of <br />watershed azea lying duectly north of the north boundazy line and 90 acres of upland due <br />north of the mining site. The sediment pond structure described in item 3 should be <br />capable of handling peak discharges of 60 cts, nearly three times the 20 cfs estimate for a <br />10 yeaz 24 hour event. As planned, the sediment pond will have to handle a much <br />smaller area, app. 40 acres of disturbed mine land and will not capture drainage from the <br />watershed above. In the interest of caution, the proposed sediment pond and spillway <br />design is based on the larger watershed parameters. <br />I hope that the information above sufficiently addresses the Division's Adequacy Items. <br />If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate to corrtact <br />me. <br />Very Truly Yours, <br />~~ <br />Kenneth S. Klco <br />Consulting Geologist <br />Azurite, Inc. <br />