Laserfiche WebLink
<br />more detailed contours shown or the slope delineated and its gradient shown. The topography which is shown is <br />the remnant of the original contours after superimposing final features, leaving only a the discontinuous pieces of <br />the contour lines, most of which now are not labelled. For example, many of these lines run straight into the ponds <br />Fish Ditch runs up and ove7a hill, roads are at the water's edge, <br />Under this same concern is the lack of detail for road or rail crossings of creeks and ditches, regarding drainage <br />patterns, filled areas, and topography. <br />The stockpile area becomes an 1 I-acre block in the east end to be revegetated. It crosses a drainagevvay (which <br />possibly includes a wetland) though the drainageway might not actually have been affected. Please clarify what <br />effects it may have had, and exactly what reclamation activities will occur there. <br />Exhibit G -Water Information <br />The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sent the Division a letter, dated September 25, 2000, in which it is stated that <br />the site of mining operations contain waters of the United States, specifically the Rio Grande, and may contain <br />wetlands also. Please clarify whether either of these are included in the permitted area. <br />Water information, prepared on your behalf by Kirk Thompson of Agro Engineering, was submitted on September <br />I S, 2000. This submittal describes a water augmentation plan whose outcome is pending in water court, for the <br />future evaporative surface of the ponds. A figure of 100 acres is mentioned Avice in this submittal. Is that to be the <br />maximum pond surface area? <br />The submittal from Mr. Thompson also stated that a map was included which shows all applicable water features, <br />though this map was not part of the submittal to the Division. The information that this map purported to show is <br />required for this exhibit. Please provide it. <br />The operation may not expose groundwater under the DMG permit until evidence of an approved augmentation <br />plan is submitted to the Division, nor may the total pond surface exceed what water court ultimately approves. This <br />Division must calculate the bond for all approved activities, for the eventuality of operator default and Board- <br />ordered revocation of a permit. if the augmentation plan is not approved, an operator must retain sufficient material <br />onsite to competely backfill all exposed water areas and post an adequate bond amount to cover those backfill costs. <br />In a revocation scenario, the State does not want to become the entity which assumes an unapproved pond for <br />which there is no augmentation plan, nor an inadequate bond to reclaim the site. (If there are questions about this, <br />please contact me.) <br />Fish Ditch is the only ditch which crosses the part of the permit azea to 6e excavated, with several unidentified <br />ditches crossing other parts of the site. It is presumed [o be an unlined earthen ditch. Mining is not to encroach on <br />this ditch, but will produce ponds on both sides of the ditch. Final pond banks may be up to a half-mile long on <br />either side of the ditch. Fish Ditch is not proposed to be realigned, piped or lined, and any inlet of ditch water into <br />the ponds is not shown or described. Because the floor elevation of Fish Ditch is difficult to determine from the <br />maps, and because the water level in the ponds is not known, please describe whether the ditch water elevation will <br />perch above that of the ponds. If the ditch is higher, will it percolate into the ponds, rendering the ditch useless as a <br />conveyance? <br />E.xhibi[ H -Wildlife Information <br />Please forward the wildlife statement from CDOW when it is received. <br />Exhibit 1 -Soils Information <br />The submitted information includes six of the eight soils on the site. Please provide the remainder. <br />