Laserfiche WebLink
~mns Colorado, Inc. (M-99-098) Obje~ns <br />(Page 1 of 2) <br />Re ulntion Citation Comment / Ob'ection / Concern <br />1.1{5) There is no evidence the site's ambient groundwater quality has been characterized <br /> and data submitted to the Office. <br />1.6.2(1)(b) The posting was not of sufficient size and number to clearly identify the site as the <br /> location of a proposed mining operation. The posting consisted of one B~" x 11" page <br /> posted at the proposed site access. An affidavit was signed and submitted stating <br /> otherwise. Refer to the enclosed ictures. <br />3.1.6(1) The plan lacks any mention of the drain tiles transversing Cell (Lake) 2 or the storm <br /> runoff ditch transversing the western area. Destruction of these drain tiles and ditch <br /> will maximize the negative impact to the affected and surrounding areas' hydrologic <br /> balance. Lined lakes will present barriers to the natural flow of surface water and <br /> create severe runoff conditions during high storm activity through the peninsula. No <br /> hydrologic balance studies are contained in the application. Refer to the attached map <br /> identif in the drain tiles. <br />3.1.6(3) The plan fails to mention how spoil piles will be stabilized and protected to effectively <br /> control erosion. <br />3.1.7(7)(a) An adverse impact on groundwater quality may be reasonably expected, yet the <br /> application simply states, without benefit of supportive data, that due to the absence <br /> of an ollutants, roundwater unlit monitorin is not re uired in this o eratian. <br />3.1.8(1) The Division of Wildlife makes numerous recommendations for improvements to the <br /> mining and reclamation plan regarding wildlife. Please refer to the letter prepared by <br /> Larr Ro stad dated November 5, 1999 (co attached). <br />3.1.9(1) and (3) The plan does not specify where the topsoil is to be stored, fails to mention <br /> se re ation and inade uatel addresses erosion and contamination issues. <br />3.1.10(4) The pion identifies vegetative species that do not provide the greatest probability of <br /> success. A ain, refer to the Division of Wildlife letter. <br />3.1.10(6) The weed control measures are inadequate for this area. Along-term plan, including <br /> unmined sites, must include all methods of weed control available including mowing, <br /> pulling, burning and herbicides (pre- and post-emergent) and the timing of such to <br /> revent roblematic conditions. <br />6.2.1(e) The le end on Exhibit F is incom lete. <br />6.4.3(e) The map and narrative fail to adequately address the existing vegetation in the area, <br /> articular) the ri avian area ireeline that will be destro ed (a roximatel 15 acres). <br />6.4.3(g) While most structures are identified on the corresponding map, the narrative fails to <br /> mention the residential area sandwiched between the mining areas. The plan does not <br /> identify drain tiles or the drainage ditch. As this relates to the statute, no evidence <br /> of structural integrity agreements or studies have been submitted, thus 200-foot <br /> setbacks are re uired from fences, homes, drain tiles and outbuildin s. <br />6.4.3(b) The Poudre River is not accurately portrayed. Buildings in the peninsula area and Rocky <br /> Road itself are not accurately portrayed according to scale. The storm water ditch <br /> transversing the western area is not identified nor are the drain tiles transversing the <br /> eastern area. <br />6.4.4(d) The plan fails to address how the groundwater, conveyed by current drain tiles, will be <br /> diverted. <br />6.4.5(1) The plan lacks specificity in addressing final grading, seeding, fertilizing, revegetation <br /> and to soilin , <br />6.4.5(2)(a) The plan fails to satisfactorily explain why water storage ponds were chosen as the <br /> sole t e of reclamation. <br />