My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-04-30_REVISION - M1996052
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1996052
>
2010-04-30_REVISION - M1996052
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:22:42 PM
Creation date
5/4/2010 7:29:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1996052
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
4/30/2010
Doc Name
Second Review
From
DRMS
To
Environment, Inc.
Type & Sequence
AM1
Email Name
ECS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Portions of the site lie within the 100 yr flood plain of the St Vrain. Any excavations created that intersect the <br />flood plain will need to have armored inlet-outlet structures appropriately sized and placed to allow floodwaters <br />to enter and exit without damage. Please address this issue in the mining plan and show required features as <br />appropriate on the Mining and Reclamation Plan maps. <br />EXHIBIT D - Mininu Plan (Rule 6.4.4): see previous paragraph. <br />Also be aware that placing structures of any kind, including excavations and reservoirs, in the designated flood <br />plain will be subject to approvals from Weld County and FEMA (conditional letter of map revision, etc.) It <br />seems likely, based on the configuration of the existing flood plain as shown on the provided FEMA map, that <br />the removal of the existing elevated rail-bed may have impacts on the extent of the flood plain that will also need <br />to be addressed as appropriate with Weld County and FEMA. <br />EXHIBIT E - Reclamation Plan (Rule 6.4.5): The Division understands that this property will now be <br />reclaimed primarily as compacted clay-lined dry excavations with rangeland vegetation. This differs <br />significantly from the original reclamation plan submitted which was primarily unlined open water lakes. It <br />would be appropriate under these circumstances to provide this "dry lined excavation" scenario as a primary <br />reclamation plan, with an alternative reclamation plan to fill the lined excavations as lakes if it becomes feasible <br />in the future for the operator to do so. This would allow either option (vegetated excavations or reservoirs) to be <br />implemented without the need for another permit amendment to modify post mining-land use. Appropriate <br />reclamation plans and maps and will need to be provided for both proposed scenarios. <br />EXHIBIT F - Reclamation Plan Map (Rule 6.4.6): Reclamation Map(s) will need to be updated to show flood <br />water inlet/outlet structures as required for excavations/reservoirs within the 100 yr flood plain. <br />EXHIBIT G - Water Information (Rule 6.4.7): Please provide the following information: <br />The adequacy comments state that "LG Everist, Inc. proposes implementing corrective actions when <br />groundwater levels at the exterior monitoring holes have dropped 5 feet or more from the monthly <br />average drop established during monitoring." Specifically, which "exterior monitoring holes" does this <br />statement refer to? LG Everist should evaluate/consider if their current groundwater monitoring points <br />will be sufficient to defend them against claims of off-site impacts to the nearby wells. <br />The change from unlined to compacted clay lined reservoirs also introduces the potential for <br />groundwater mounding/shadowing. There are currently no plans for a French drain or any other <br />mitigation against groundwater mounding/shadowing. Again, LG Everist should consider if their current <br />groundwater monitoring points will be sufficient to defend them against claims of off-site impacts from <br />this new configuration. <br />Are there any downstream users of the "Seep Ditch" that have filed for water rights that would be <br />impacted by its removal on-site? Will removal of the "Seep Ditch" on-site impact irrigation return <br />flows? <br />EXHIBIT H - Wildlife Information (Rule 6.4.8): Adequate as submitted. <br />EXHIBIT I - Soils Information (Rule 6.4.9): Adequate as submitted. <br />EXHIBIT J - Veutation Information (Rule 6.4.10): Adequate as submitted.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.