2008-04-25_PERMIT FILE - M2008010

Home Browse Search

Letter: Response to adequacy review, Permit Application M-2008-010 4!2512008 page 9 in Section D-9. Surface Water Management (page 16) and shown on Cross-sections (Figure E-4-1, page 24) and Map F-2 (page 26), is a part of the existing terrain left in place and intended to keep a functioning detention (not retention) and sediment basin to prevent discharge of sediment from the site, especially during mining. The 20- foot remnant "berm" on the property line is made up primarily of the cobbly loam typical of the Collide complex soils and will allow the water to filter through, rather than pond up as the District fears. Such ponding is not permitted by the Division of Water Resources without obtaining special permits or providing substitution for water consumed by such ponds. In the long term, although not explicitly addressed in the permit application (except in the engineering evaluation report in Exhibit S), the Noland Cedar Point Pit to the west (currently operated by Sky Ute Sand and Gravel) has stated that they plan to amend or do a technical revision to their mining and reclamation permit to allow mining out to the property and permit boundary line between the Mud Creek and the Cedar Point Pits, which would also allow similar mining on the part of the Mud Creek Pit operator. It is the Mud Creek Pit Operator's intent to modify the Mining Plan and Reclamation Plan to mine out the area.on the east side of the joint boundary, rather than leave a ridge between the two properties; although it is understood that a technical revision might be required to do so. Unfortunately, since the current reclamation plan for the Cedar Point Pit does include the ridge, this is not possible at this time and so was not included in the application. This would improve both mining and reclamation of both permits. (A similar option is possible with the newly-permitting Simmons Pit located to the east, where the two pits will be adjacent to each other in the northeast corner of the Mud Creek Pit.) As discussed on page 27, mining operations would remove an estimated 40 acres of surface drainage from the Mud Creek watershed, an estimated 0.42% reduction in the size of the basin, and therefore not considered significant; however, the water would continue to infiltrate and presumably (if sufficient) flow through the remaining alluvium that makes up the alluvial aquifer associated with Mud Creek. 11. Structures Engineering Evaluation and Geotechnical Stability: Exhibit S, including the sealed and signed statement by Mr. Barton, (a licensed professional engineer in the State of Colorado) was intended to comply with Rule 6.4.19(b) and we do not believe that there is a need to implement Rule 6.5. It is Mr. Barton's professional judgment that the mining operation will NOT adversely affect the stability of any significant, valuable and permanent man-made structure located within