Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Kris Pennington <br />Page 3 <br />December 8, 2010 <br />east boundary is 0.1 inches longer than the west boundary. If the difference in lengths is due <br />solely to the obliqueness of the aerial photos, please indicate as much. <br />a. There is reason to believe the two east-west lengths along the north edge of <br />Section 10 are mislabeled. According to the lease in Exhibit N, these two lengths <br />should be 690.1' and 1952.4' instead of 500' and 1942.4, respectively. <br />5. The purpose of Exhibit C(d) is to identify and locate the area to be involved in the mining <br />operation. A beginning point (e.g., a landmark) for the referenced measurements should be <br />identified. on the map. <br />6. The purpose of Exhibit C(e) is to identify the type of present vegetation covering the affected <br />lands. The affected lands are not explicitly shown. Please show the boundary lines or limit <br />the information in the tables to only those soils (and thereby the vegetation by reference) in <br />the affected area. Again, the scale is too small. <br />7. Exhibit C(g) identifies an unnamed dry creek bed. Please explain how this unnamed <br />drainage is not affected by the current operation as indicated in Exhibit C(f). Will this <br />drainage allow stormwater to leave the site or cause ponding that results in infiltration? <br />During the November 8t' Pre-Operation Inspection a dozer operator was regrading an area <br />near the middle of the existing pit. He said he thought water was ponding to a depth of about <br />five feet earlier in the summer. He also stated that there were areas that would not support <br />the weight of the dozer. This suggests water is ponding for longer than 72 hours. This area <br />should be regraded to promote positive drainage and a SWMP may be required by CDPHE. <br />a. There is another unnamed drainage indicated by a blue line on the USGS <br />quadrangle map used in Exhibits C(c) and F. The drainage starts near the middle <br />of the west side of the proposed expansion area and crosses County Rd 67 and <br />continues to the northwest. Depending on intermediate and final grading, this <br />drainage may be affected as well. <br />8. The scale on Exhibit C(g) is not consistent with the 1:24,000 shown and is too small. <br />9. The scale on the Exhibit C(h) is too small (note scale Rule 6.2.1(2)(e)). Please show affected <br />area and indicate which soils are in the affected area. <br />10. The scale on the first Exhibit C(i) appears to be closer to 1: 18,900 than the 1:24,000 shown. <br />11. Will the drainage gradient be re-established to allow stormwater to leave the site post- <br />mining? <br />6.4.4 EXHIBIT D - Mining Plan <br />1. The Division is concerned with the affect of mining operations on structures near the mine, <br />such as fences, utilities and roads. Please provide a description of the mining operation with <br />respect to slopes on the working face(s) of the mine. Do you propose setbacks for the limit <br />of excavation with respect to the proposed permit boundary, fence, power line and/or County <br />Road 67? <br />2. Please clarify the fourth and fifth sentences in the fourth paragraph stating "Ponding of water <br />may occur after a significant rain...", but "Interception of surface drainage will not occur."