Laserfiche WebLink
1) Is the Excelsior ditch a clay lined or other impervious material lined ditch ? If it is not, <br />what are the potentials for water seeping from the ditch to the direction of the pit floor <br />once the pit elevation is below the bottom of ditche's elevation? Given the high rate of <br />transmissivity of the alluvium deposit in the area, is that a possibility? Please explain. <br />2) Would the same scenario take place with Chico Creek once the pit floors are below the <br />invert elevation of the channel for the creek? Please explain. <br />3) According to the operator, the 100 year flood plain of the Arkansas River covers most of <br />the property as labeled in Exhibit C -2 food plain location. A flood Hazard Development <br />permit has been obtained from Pueblo County on May 10, 2004 to mitigate the <br />potential impacts of flooding on and off the property ". Please provide the report for our <br />files. <br />4) Under ground water, the operator states, "The major ground water aquifer on and <br />around the property is the alluvial aquifer of the Arkansas River. Boreholes drilled on <br />the property show groundwater at 7 to 11 feet below ground surface. Ground water <br />flows to the south - southeast. There are no ground water wells on the property, <br />however, there are several ground water monitoring wells present (owned by the <br />operator). The operator owns two irrigation wells just north and within 30 feet of the <br />north property line (see Exhibit G -1) for locations. There are no known off site wells <br />owned by others located within 600 feet of the mining limit. Due to the high <br />transmissivity of the alluvial aquifer, off site wells are not expected to be affected by <br />dewatering of the mine site. Four ground water monitoring wells have been installed on <br />the property to establish baseline conditions and to monitor impacts of dewatering". <br />The Division is not clear with the statement. Are there any known wells within 600 feet <br />of the permit boundary ? If there are, please locate them on the map and address <br />possible impacts. <br />5) The Division has forwarded you the comments from the State Engineer's Office. You will <br />have to provide the Division a copy of their final approval for our records. <br />Exhibit "1" Reclamation Costs. <br />Under the reclamation costs, the operator states," Reclamation cost for this mining permit was <br />based on the maximum disturbed, acreage of (80 acres) at any given time, including plant and <br />stockpile areas. The DRMS approved the current reclamation bond of $410,693.00. It is <br />recognized that the DRMS has a policy whereby a financial warranty for a slurry wall can be <br />submitted at 20% of the value of the slurry wall provided that detailed engineering design plans <br />are submitted. The applicant currently does not have such a plan and won't until an end user of <br />the reservoir is known. At that time, the plans will be developed. It is proposed that the <br />financial warranty be increased by $412,800.00 ( which is 20% of the cost of constructing the <br />slurry wall) and that a Technical Revision be submitted when an end user is known and they <br />have developed the slurry wall ". <br />1) The original cost estimate for the site was not for 80 acres. That was what the operator <br />wanted at that time. However, because Brannon Sand and Gravel didn't have the water <br />rights to backfill the pits, the financial warranty was calculated for 25 acres to be <br />backfilled to two feet above the average ground water elevation. The cost for the 80 <br />