2008-04-09_PERMIT FILE - M2008006 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: M2008006
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 4/9/2008
• Doc Name: Objection letter
• From: DOT
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: ESC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE QF CaL~RADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA710N
Region Four Materials ~ `~
3971 W Service Road
Evans, Colorado 80645 °°"a'"~'"'OF7' " °"
[phone]
(Fax)330-8513
Date: April 9, 2008 ~ ~
TO: Erica S. Crosby
Environmental Protection Specialist
Division of Reclamation,lVlining, and Safety
1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 215
Denver, Colo. 80203
. i ''~ - ~/
Re: Connell Resources, Inc. Mining Permit Application for SerFer Pit ~~ -~(.,~~ (,,,~ ~1
~b~~cfi~-~~ ~ ,~ ~~
After reviewing the State permit application for the SerFer Pit, CDOT is submitting the followi g comments and
concerns for your consideration.
• It states on page six of the application that de-watering trenches will be excavated around
the entire perimeter of the disturbed area. Is this the entire 45~ acre site, the 34 acre
mining site, or the no more that 15 acres that will be disturbed for mining at any one
From: Gary DeWitt
Region Materials Engineer
time?
Page 11 says the trenches will be constructed around. half of the perimeter of the pit. Could we have a
clarification on this matter?
We assume these trenches be located in the area to be mined and not in the set back areas
between the mined area and affected area boundaries.
What will be the back slope of these trenches? Steep back slopes left for an extended
period of time could cause caving back into the set back areas and reduce their width.
On page 6 it states that fines from the settling ponds could be mixed with the overburden
and used as back fill. It would be difficult to obtain a uniform homogenous mixture of
these fines and the overburden. It would also seem that fines suspended in water would
be susceptible to erosion and questionable for use in backfill material for a pond.
Page 7 states that inlet and outlet facilities for the reservoir will not be designed at this
time. We submit that if a portion the area is to be reclaimed as a water storage facility,
the location of the inlet and outlet are of primary concern for this area and this
information should be included in the reclamation plan and considered as pertinent as the
very specific seeding plan that is required and included in the reclamation plan for re-
vegetating the disturbed upland areas. These proposed structures could potentially have
an impact on SH 392 and they should be considered during the permitting process and
made a part of the Reclamation Permit. Revisions could be requested later if necessary,
similar to the process for changes in any reclamation plan.
Considering a combined overburden and gravel thickness of 12.5 feet, as stated on page
3, and using the acres of the reservoir and the capacity shown on page 7, there will only
be approximately .1.5 feet of bank above the water level of the reservoir. We request that
the portion of the reservoir paralleling SH 392, and the NW and NE corners be protected
E0/Z0 3~~Id Sd1 bpi lOQ~ ET580EE0L6 9b ~tiZ 888Z1601b0