Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />preferred to allow the operator discretion as to which is Wised at <br />any particular time under possibly changing conditions, provided the <br />effect of controlling sediment leaving the site is fulfilled. <br />Item 10: Regarding compliance with Colorado Water Laws. <br />RESPONSE: It is certainly clear that full retention oP water on the site could <br />result in water right irtjury. Although no examination of water <br />rights and the effect of retention to those rights has been clone, it <br />is believed that maintenance of the historical flows from tlcis site <br />should not produce a conflict. Therefore, sediment control m~:asures <br />are intended to reduce the rate oP flow such that an approximation <br />of the historical flows are maintained without allowing greater <br />amounts of sediment to leave the site than has historically occurred. <br />It is our understanding that detention such that the water is <br />allowed to leave within 24 hours is sufficient. We believe this time <br />frame can be met while controlling sedimentation on adJacent lands <br />using Berms, ditches, and silt fence structures. <br />Item 11: Regarding refuse and acid-forming and toxic producing m:~terlals <br />exposed during the mining. <br />RESPONSE: To the best of our knowledge, weathered Pikes Peak granite does not <br />generally contain any acid-forming or toxic producing materials. <br />Therefore, none of these types of substances should be exposed <br />during mining. Refuse from the mining does not exist as all <br />materials mined are sold as a pit run material without any ~~n-site <br />processing. <br />ITEM 12: See responses to Item 9. <br />EXHIBIT D <br />Item 2: Regarding a commitment to not exceed the approved reclamation <br />slopes in the Western part of the mining operation. <br />RESPONSE: The operator commits to producing the slopes shown in the plan. <br />See response to following item. <br />Special Note. Paae 2 of Exhibit D: Regarding the exclusion of areas not; to be <br />disturbed in the plan. <br />RESPONSE: There was considerable discussion regarding the Eastern portion of <br />the operation and whether it needed to be included In the permit. <br />Although there was some thought that it should be excluded as it <br />is apparently pre-law and will not actually be mined, it seem~sd that <br />the reclamation of the rest oP the pit without reclaiming this area <br />did not make a great deal of sense. Plus proving the land 1s pre- <br />law was recognized as being quite difficult. Therefore, the land was <br />included in the permit. However, work in the Eastern section is <br />solely a reclamation action on what appears to be pre-law affected <br />