Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />the owners of nearby structures when blasting will be conducted <br />outside of normal business hours, ie: emergencies or special <br />conditions. Please respond. <br />3. The mine plan mentions that a crushing facility will be <br />operated near the pit area to produce the desired rock product(s). <br />Undoubtedly, the operator will need to have an air emissions permit <br />issued by the Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control <br />Division for this activity. We strongly suggest that the: operator <br />propose a monitoring program for air quality to en::ure that <br />Colorado air quality criteria are being complied with. P..gain, the <br />quarry is located in close proximity to residential homes as well <br />as a water treatment facility that could be directly affected by <br />the mining operation if fugitive dust is not managed effectively. <br />Please comment. <br />4. The reclamation plan specifies planting of native trees and <br />shrubs in the bench area beneath the highwall. However, the plan <br />did not specify the number or density of trees and/or shrubs to be <br />planted. Based on the proposed post-mining land use, the <br />reyegetation following reclamation should be similar in composition <br />and density to the surrounding landscape. Please F~rovide a <br />recommended density to be followed and associated cost for <br />planting. <br />5. The reclamation cost provided should include itemized costs for <br />planting of trees and shrubs, structural demolition for any <br />temporary structures, a list of equipment to be used and associated <br />costs for mobilization and demobilization, and an indirect cost of <br />20$. Further, the reclamation cost projection for the existing 30 <br />disturbed acres ($46,050) should be based on July, 1595 costs <br />rather than that estimated in March, 1985. Please respond. <br />6. The application includes a preliminary stormwater management <br />plan which addresses control of runoff in the pit areas and along <br />the haul road downgradient toward Tunnel Drive. The proposed plan <br />is not complete and will not be adequate for the purpos~as of the <br />amendment application. Attached is a copy of comments from Robert <br />Saulmon, City Engineer for the City of Canon City. The Division <br />shares the same concerns regarding stormwater and requests that the <br />operator respond accordingly. Further, the amendment application <br />should provide plan view and cross sectional designs for the <br />detention ponds to be built. <br />The channel design provided appears to be sized to handy: maximum <br />stormwater flows expected at the site. However, a primary concern <br />which needs to be addressed is that the drainage channel is <br />designed to withstand the peak flow velocity expected along various <br />sections of the haul road. The road base material appeeirs to be <br />easily susceptible to water erosion. Therefore, steep sections of <br />the channel may require a synthetic liner and additional treatment <br />such as riprap. Please provide maximum peak flow v~alocities <br />expected in the channel, the maximum permissable velocity of the <br />substrate material, and proposed remedial treatments as n~acessary. <br />