The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20122949 WQl 0-0Q`( ASPHALT SPECIALTIES CO . 10100 Dallas St. • Henderson, CO 80640 • (303) 289-8555 • Fax: (303) 289-7707 October 16, 2012 Mr. Eric Scott Environmental Protection Specialist Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 RE: Submittal of Adequacy Review Comments for Amendment (AM-2) for Turnpike Mining Resource , DRMS Permit No. M-2004-009 Dear Mr. Scott: Responses to your preliminary Adequacy Review letter of August 10, 2012 for the referenced amendment are provided below in regular print underneath each of your original review comments which are in bold. Initials of the responder are given in italics at the end of each statement indicating RL for Rob Laird of Asphalt Specialties Co., Inc. ("ASCI") and PFW for Peter Wayland of Weiland, Inc. If there are changes to an Exhibit based on the Adequacy Review from the initial submittal of the amendment application, it is noted in the response. Only those text Exhibits which have been changed due to this Adequacy Review are being re- submitted. All map Exhibits are being re-submitted. ASCI has employed Mr. Wayland for some of the more technical issues with the permit. Mr. Wayland has over 20 years of professional experience and 15 years of experience in permitting sand and gravel operations. With a Master's Degree in Hydrogeology from the University of Colorado, Boulder, he has specific expertise relevant to hydrologic balance and water quality in the Colorado Front Range. Additionally, Martin & Martin Engineers have been employed by the Town of Erie and ASCI to complete the floodplain Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for the property. APPLICATION FORM: The current and primary future post-mining land uses are identified as "developed water resource" on page 4 of the application form. This does not seem to be the correct choice. The only existing reservoir on site is part of the City of Erie's new PWTP, and the remaining previously planned lined reservoirs are now expected to be backfilled with shale. Current and post mining land uses should be changed to IndustriaUCommercial to reflect the current state of the site (active mining) as well as the new primary future land use. On a related topic - post mining land use shown on the forms in Exhibit Q will also need to be corrected and re-filed for the notice to County Commissioners and Soil Conservation Service. A ' i, LG`u7t[ . 2012-2949 /6- 2G/ C'C // /'lC (Responses to all Notifications are contained below with accompanying "proofs", rather than also at the end of Adequacy Review requests) Following this explanation is proof that both the Weld County BOCC and the Longmont Conservation Board received both a copy of a revised Notice of Filing Application and a revised Exhibit Q that were received on 8-31-12 and 9-4-12 respectively. Per the DRMS request, the primary future land use is shown as Industrial/Commercial on the revised app form and the reclaimed land use (Ex. Q) is shown to be Agricultural/Industrial. As of October 3, 2012, no one has viewed the application materials in Greeley. The original proof of filings with both entities was submitted with the application, as the application was deemed complete by the DRMS. Following these revised documents is the original Affidavit of Publication from the Longmont Times-Call newspaper showing the public notice was published in the paper for the proper amount of time and on the specific dates required. The DRMS was copied on this affidavit previously by e-mail. Following the Affidavit is a copy of the memo that was sent to all property owners within 200 ft. of the permit area and to all easement/ROW/lease holders, etc. within the permit area. This included all utility companies, a ditch company, oil and gas transmission companies and all oil and gas production companies. Following the memo is a list ("Businesses") of those entities and proofs that those entities received the notification by Certified Letter. Anadarko was the only company that contacted ASCI and we sent them (Terry Enright) a reclamation plan map that also showed the oil and gas operations areas. Following the notices to businesses is a list obtained from the Weld County property information services (through 8-3-2012) of adjacent property owners within 200 ft. of the permit area and proofs that those property owners received the notification by Certified Letter. There was only one property owner who no longer is in the area and the Certified Letter was returned to ASCI. RL EXHIBIT A - Legal Description (Rule 6.4.1): Adequate as submitted EXHIBIT B - Index Map (Rule 6.4.2): Adequate as submitted EXHIBIT C - Pre-mining and Mining Plan Map(s) of Affected Lands (Rule 6.4.3): Adequate as submitted Two changes have been made to the Mining Plan Maps in the form of the new floodplain boundary being shown and the increased setback from SH-52 being returned to the map as in 2006. PFW EXHIBIT D - Mining Plan (Rule 6.4.4): What are the current projected amounts of overburden and saleable material to be removed from each of the remaining cells to be mined? What assumptions/configurations have been used to calculate that enough material can be/will be excavated and sold to allow for the replacement of all overburden plus the 631,000 c.y. of excess shale into the resulting excavations and still have the resulting surface be at original grade? No documentation has been provided to demonstrate that the "material balance" for this plan is achievable. Please see updates to Exhibit E in response to your material balance question. PFW Although several alternatives have been provided, no plan to stabilize the existing shale stockpiles against erosion has been specified for immediate implementation. The AM-02 application outlined several options for revegetation and stabilization of the shale stockpiles located in the south-central area of the permit. These options were developed by a reclamation specialist/soil scientist (David Chenoweth) that ASCI had used in the past for revegetation solutions for problematic applications. In order to facilitate a revegetation program for these shale piles, a lab soil nutrient analysis was performed. Along with the revegetation options, this soil analysis was submitted with the amendment application. The soil analysis shows that from a soil science perspective, what we have been terming "shale" (a rock type) is incorrect and that the more accurate term for this material is a silt loam soil type. Other than the lack of much soil structure, this material does not have any serious limiting factors in order to establish a vegetative cover. The pH is neutral, there are only low amounts of sodium and salt and there are several desirable amounts of nutrients including potassium, calcium and magnesium. Given the temporary nature of these material piles and further discussions with David Chenoweth, ASCI will implement Option 2 during the winter months of 2012-2013 at this site. Exhibit D has been updated to include the specification for soil stabilization. RL EXHIBIT E - Reclamation Plan (Rule 6.4.5): In preparing the Reclamation Plan, you should be specific in terms of addressing such items as final grading (including drainage), seeding, fertilizing, revegetation (trees, shrubs, etc.), and topsoiling. You are encouraged to allow flexibility in your plans by committing to ranges of numbers (e.g., 6"-12" of topsoil) rather than specific figures. Exhibit E has been updated to include a table (table 6.4.5-1) which includes remaining total volume (Overburden + pit run), total overburden and volume of backfill required to bring back the mined pit area to historic grade. The volume of backfill required to bring to historic grade is equal to the saleable pit run volume. No assumptions were made in the earthwork calculations other than the idea that mining will be completed as planned. Volumes were calculated utilizing Autodesk Land Desktop Development (LDD) 3 dimensional (3d) surface modeling. The 3d surfaces were constructed based on drill logs for the site. Additional materials onsite include fines stockpiles and stockpiles of concrete debris excavated from the reservoir site(Cell 1), all of which are saleable materials. The concrete debris will be recycled as aggregate. The stockpiles of shale were surveyed and modeled with LDD to determine the total volume. Some of the shale stockpiles surveyed also include overburden, which was not separated out since all of it will be used as backfill. The final grading topographic contours arc specifically shown in Exhibit F. An engineered drainage system has been constructed in the area of the Erie WWTP. The final grading plan will bring the site to approximate historic grade and is expected to drain as it would have historically. It should be noted that no major offsite drainageways intercept the site. The term surface soil replacement given in Exhibit E has been updated to the term "topsoil replacement" and the depth of application has been specified. PEW How will Asphalt Specialties satisfy SEO requirements for final release with respect to the exposed groundwater pond located in the northwest corner of the permit area? No exposed groundwater pond has existed in the northwest corner on this site since at least 2005. In order to continue mining on this site (as mining had ceased and reclamation completed in —1995 and a new DRMS permit had to be obtained), one of the first actions was to drain the pond to mine the remaining sand and gravel in this area. The reservoir has been completed for the Town of Erie in the north-northwest area of the permit and approval for "release" of any further requirements by the Division of Water Resources for this structure to be used as a water-storage reservoir was received by ASC1 on August 6, 2012. The DRMS has previously been forwarded a copy of this "leak-test" approval, but another copy follows. The work required to be completed by ASCI in order to create a reservoir, was complete lining of the reservoir sides with an impermeable clay liner. The Town of Erie is waiting on final approval for a conversion of water rights to be used for filling the reservoir. With approval from the Division of Water Resources that this reservoir is sealed and can be used as a water-storage reservoir, bonding for the construction of the reservoir by the DRMS is no longer required and is reflected in Exhibit L. PFW/RL DRMS cannot approve the "alternate reclamation scenario", or use this scenario for bonding calculation until the revised LOMR is approved for this area and it can be demonstrated to DRMS that enough of the site has been removed from the floodplain that the alternate plan would be feasible. The DRMS is in receipt of an e-mail message and letter sent previously on October 10, 2012 with supporting documentation by Martin-Martin Consulting Engineers (the consultants for the Town of Erie) stating that the current approval of a Letter of Map Revision ("LOMR") to the Flood Insurance Rate Map ("FIRM") that encompasses the Turnpike mine site by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") is in the last stage of acceptance. That correspondence also follows with this adequacy response. The few days of public comment on the approval of the LOMR are nearly over. Also enclosed is a recently signed FEMA "concurrence" form that both Erie and Weld County (Clay Kimmi, the local FEMA approved Community Official) are in agreement with the floodplain mapping, redefining the floodplain on the Turnpike site. The LOMR map (copy enclosed) shows that the entire southern area of the Turnpike permit site is no longer within the 100-year floodplain of Boulder Cr. By having this area out of the floodplain, the Alternate Reclamation Scenario could occur, if required. The alternate reclamation plan proposes that should ASCI be unable to complete the mining and burying of the shale stockpiles into the southern area of the permit, the shale could be placed on top of the sand and gravel deposit (after removal and stockpiling of the overburden/topsoil) and covered with the removed topsoil and revegetated. This action would result in this area of the permit to be raised by approximately 8-9 ft., but would have no effect on the floodplain. RI EXHIBIT F- Reclamation Plan Map (Rule 6.4.6): The reclamation and mining plan maps do not show the boundary of the proposed revised floodplain discussed in the amendment. Exhibit F has been updated to show the revised Floodplain Boundary as approved by the Weld County Floodplain administrator and pending final administrative approval by FEMA. The technical aspect of the LOMR has been approved by FEMA and therefore the floodplain lines on the map are not subject to change pending final approval. PFW EXHIBIT G- Water Information (Rule 6.4.7): Submit a brief statement or plan showing how water from dewatering operations or from runoff from disturbed areas, piled material and operating surfaces will be managed to protect against pollution of either surface or groundwater (and, where applicable, control pollution in a manner that is consistent with water quality discharge permits), both during and after the operation. A Stormwater and Spill Control Plan has been implemented and has been active on this site since 2004. The stormwater permit for sand and gravel mining is combined with the discharge permit. It is periodically updated (at a minimum, every five years) depending on changes to the operation. The creation of the reservoir and associated treatment plant are obvious major changes, as well as the current production plant with no washing of aggregate. The most recent cover and signature page to the plan is enclosed. As with most sand and gravel mining operations, all surface runoff either percolates into the alluvial groundwater system or is directed towards the mining pit. That is the case in both instances at the Turnpike operation. Discharge (when it occurs; it is not constant) from the dry mining operation is kept entirely separate from any nearby surface runoff The reclamation plan map takes into account surface runoff and shows grading consistent with pre-mine topography. RL DRMS believes that more than two groundwater monitoring wells will be required to sufficiently monitor the permit area for possible impact to prevailing water levels as well as potential inorganic contamination especially considering the large area proposed for backfill with the existing shale stockpiles. DRMS has noted the TCLP results provided, however just because the material is not considered "hazardous" does not preclude the possibility of adverse impacts to the prevailing groundwater chemistry. Please submit a groundwater quality monitoring plan including background water quality data and appropriate constituent trigger levels and sampling protocols for this site for DRMS approval. The AM-2 submittal did include 3 monitoring wells, which are considered sufficient to define a 3d water table surface (triple point problem). ASCI does have historic water table data from drilling in the 1990's which will be used to establish baseline water levels prior to pumping. The specified monitoring wells will be installed prior to backfilling of Cell 2 and monitored quarterly. It is understood that the TCLP result on its own will not preclude the possibility of adverse impacts to the groundwater system. The TCLP can however provide a screening of what metals could potentially be leached by groundwater. In order for metals to leach from the clay backfill into the groundwater system, there must be flow through the clay. The Clay liner constructed for the reservoir in Cell 1 was constructed from the same clay material that is proposed for backfill into Cell 2. The 90 day leak test for that clay liner, which was approved by the Office of the State Engineer, resulted in a hydraulic conductivity of 0.001 ft./day. It is reasonable to assume the clay backfill area would yield the same or less hydraulic conductivity due the large size of the area and the compaction that will occur from the movement of earthmoving equipment during the backfill operation. Applying Darcy's law of groundwater flow and using a regional hydraulic groundwater gradient of .0133 ft./ft. (USGS OFR 02-338), the predicted groundwater velocity would be 1.33 x 10.5 ft./day. Given this velocity, a particle of water would take on the order of 100,000 years to travel through the entire width of the clay backfill area. The clay backfill area would therefore be considered impermeable and any leaching of metals from the clay would be considered negligible. PFW You must affirmatively state that the Operator/Applicant has acquired (or has applied for) a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Water Quality Control Division at the Colorado Department of Health, if necessary. Does this operation have a current approved SWSP, and discharge permit for dewatering discharge into Boulder Creek? A CDPS discharge permit has been obtained and has been in force since 2004. The most recent amendment to the permit was approved in August 2012 relocating the discharge point location. The first page of the approval letter follows. Both a SWSP and a well permit were approved by the SEO in August 2006 for water augmentation due to dry mining trenches, the discharge sump and washing of aggregate. A renewal of the SWSP was requested in 2008 and again in 2011. The SWSP will be renewed shortly after approval of this DRMS amendment, in order to account for a change in the type of mining equipment with no wash ponds and no reclaimed lined ponds at the close of mining as part of the amended reclamation plan. ASCI has continually leased augmentation water from the City of Louisville which uses effluent from their treatment plant on Coal Creek as lease water for augmentation plans to users such as ASCI. This lease has been renewed again for the water year 2012-2013. ASCI leases far more "make-up" water than is required, as there is a minimal amount required to be leased from Louisville and that is far more than what is required at the Turnpike site. Please see following correspondence from and to Jonathon Hernandez, the SEO approval authority for this area of the state for augmentation plans, regarding the amended/revised SWSP for this site. RL EXHIBIT H - Wildlife Information (Rule 6.4.8): Adequate as submitted EXHIBIT I- Soils Information (Rule 6.4.9): Adequate as submitted EXHIBIT J- Vegetation Information (Rule 6.4.10): Adequate as submitted EXHIBIT K- Climate (Rule 6.4.11): Adequate as submitted EXHIBIT L - Reclamation Costs (Rule 6.4.12): All information necessary to calculate the costs of reclamation must be submitted and broken down into the various major phases of reclamation. You must provide sufficient information to calculate the cost of reclamation that would be incurred by the state. DRMS cannot approve the "alternate reclamation scenario" or use this scenario for bonding until the revised LOMR is approved for this area and it can be demonstrated to DRMS that enough of the site has been removed from the floodplain that the alternate plan would be feasible. Provide another bonding scenario or estimate for the site that will comply with the existing/current site and regulatory conditions. DRMS may reconsider the reclamation bonding for the site, if/when the LOMAR is approved and the "alternate scenario" can be shown to be feasible. See discussion under Exhibit E-Reclamation Plan for the response to the LOMR approval comment above. Ex. L-Reclamation Costs has been revised to show the cost for the shale pile stabilization. EXHIBIT M - Other Permits and Licenses (Rule 6.4.13): A statement identifying which of the following permits, licenses and approvals the Operator/Applicant holds or will be seeking in order to conduct the proposed mining and reclamation operations: effluent discharge permits, air quality emissions permits, radioactive source material licenses, the State Historic Preservation Office clearance, disposal of dredge and fill material (404) permits, permit to construct a dam, well permits, US ACOE permits, highway access permits, U.S. Forest Service permits, Bureau of Land Management permits, county zoning and land use permits, and city zoning and land use permits. All permits are in place and valid in order to operate a sand and gravel mine and associated processing on the Turnpike site and have been since at least 2006. These include: • The CDPS combined discharge permit and stonnwater permit has been previously described under Ex. G-Water Information. • Air quality permits are current for both the site (fugitive dust) and the portable processing machinery(crusher and screens). • There are no cultural resources located on this site. • A USACOE permit for a "low water crossing"over Boulder Creek(in order to move haul and transport trucks over the creek) was approved several years ago and included some fill that will be removed and reclaimed with final reclamation as discussed under Ex. E- Reclamation Plan. An engineering study showing the details of the design was submitted to the USACOE/DRMS in order to get that approval. Since the mining on this property is now much scaled-back, all processing and access will occur on the west side of the creek and trucks will access onto WCR-1/East County Line Rd. There is approval from both Weld County and Boulder County for this access, as both counties share maintenance duties. The low-water crossing will only be used for hauling backfill to the mined-out areas on the west side of Boulder Cr. • There are no dams on this site. • The only well permit currently associated with this operation is for the substitute supply/augmentation plan for exposure of wound water and that has been discussed under Ex. G-Water Information. • Access to both State Hwy. 52 and to Weld County Rd. 1/East County Line Rd. are approved by both CDOT and Weld/Boulder County. • Sand and gravel mining, processing and hauling from the site are approved through Special Use Permits by both Weld County and the Town of Erie. Wetlands studies have been performed, submitted and approved for no wetland habitat on this site to the USACOE/DRMS. A Ute Ladies Tresses study and Bald Eagle Habitat study have also been performed on this site and are located in the DRMS file. No critical habitat for either species was found. There are no cultural resources on this site. RL EXHIBIT N - Source of Legal Right to Enter (Rule 6.4.14): Adequate as submitted EXHIBIT 0 - Owner(s) of Record of Affected Land (Surface Area) and Owners of Substance to be Mined (Rule 6.4.15): Adequate as submitted EXHIBIT P- Municipalities Within Two Miles (Rule 6.4.16): Adequate as submitted EXHIBIT Q - Proof of Mailing of Notices to County Commissioners and Soil Conservation District(Rule 6.4.17): As discussed previously in the Application Form section: Post mining land use shown on the forms in Exhibit Q will need to be corrected and re-filed for the notice to County Commissioners and Soil Conservation Service. Proof of re-filing with correct post mining land use will need to be submitted. See Application Form section at the front of this response for a full discussion of all notices. EXHIBIT R- Proof of Filing with County Clerk and Recorder (Rule 6.4.18): You must submit an affidavit or receipt indicating the date on which the application and any subsequent revisions were placed with the local County Clerk and Recorder. See Application Form section at the front of this response for a full discussion of all notices. EXHIBIT S - Permanent Man-Made Structures (Rule 6.4.19): Please note that roadways and above-ground or underground utilities (if present) within 200 feet of the proposed affected area are considered permanent man-made structures. In accordance with Rule 6.4.19, when mining operations will adversely affect the stability of any significant, valuable and permanent man-made structure located within 200 feet of the affected area, the applicant may either: (a) Provide a notarized agreement between the applicant and the person(s) having an interest in the structure, that the applicant is to provide compensation for any damage to the structure; or (b) Where such an agreement cannot be reached, the applicant shall provide an appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not be damaged by activities occurring at the mining operation; or (c) Where such structure is a utility, the Applicant may supply a notarized letter, on utility letterhead, from the owner(s) of the utility that the mining and reclamation activities, as proposed, will have "no negative effect" on their utility. Please provide evidence (such as proof of delivery of certified letter to structure owners) that a notarized agreement between the structure owners and the applicant was pursued. If an agreement is unable to be reached a geotechnical assessment may be provided to demonstrate that the structures shall not be damaged. If the geotechnical assessment is required, you must provide information sufficient to demonstrate that the stability of any structures located within two hundred (200) feet of the operation or affected land will not be adversely affected. The adequacy response received by DRMS for AMO1 dated June 14, 2006 indicates that the only structure agreements obtained at that time were from EnCana Energy and United Power. Other structure agreements were to be pursued and forwarded to DRMS as required as mining progressed. The June 2006 letter also commits to mining no closer than 200 feet to State Hwy 52 unless a structure agreement with CDOT is obtained. A commitment was made in that letter to not mine within 200 feet of any structures until a completed structure damage agreement was obtained. A Surface Use Agreement ("SUA") between ASCI, the Town of Erie and Anadarko, Foundation Energy, and Nobel Energy was executed in February 2008 which mirrors mining setbacks given in Exhibit C-2. The Town of Erie has since added buried utilities in the access road easement which have been added to Exhibit C-2. A letter has been sent to the Town of Erie requesting agreement with mining setbacks as shown in Exhibit C-2. The setback of 40 ft. has been specified and is based on a geotechnical slope stability analysis given in Section 6.5 (attached). Exhibit C-2 has been edited to show an Erie gas line on the west side of the access easement, which WI was un-aware of at the time of the last submittal. Additionally, Cell 2 C has been edited to set back 40ft from this gas line. The limits of mining have also been set back 20011 from SH-52, since a setback agreement with CDOT had not been requested. PEW A review of DRMS records for the site does not show that any additional structure agreements have been obtained/submitted at this time. DRMS was also unable to locate in the site records the geotechnical slope stability study referred to in AM02 demonstrating that mining within 200 feet of any structure would cause no adverse effect - or any DRMS approval letter for a stability study. If our records are incomplete, please provide copies of this documentation, so that your site file can be updated as needed. If you are unable to provide copies of this material (executed structure agreements, proof of mailing(s), or the approved geotechnical stability study), new, current agreements with all the structure owners listed in Exhibit S of AM02 will need to be obtained and provided. Until such time as a setback agreement can be reached with Erie (or in the event agreement cannot be reached then the DRMS approves the geotechnical slope stability analysis), ASCI will commit to staying 200ft from Erie's utilities. A setback agreement letter has been sent to Erie for response and is attached PFW Additional Information: You will also need to provide the Division with proof of notice publication and notification to surrounding property owners. Any letters from other commenting agencies/entities received by the Division to date have been included with this correspondence for you to review. See Application Form section at the front of this response for a full discussion of all notices. Please see attached comment letters from SEO, US ACOE and State Historical Society and address as appropriate. See discussion under Ex. E-Reclamation Plan, Ex. G-Water Information and Ex. M-Other Permits and Licenses for an explanation answering these referral letter comments. This concludes our responses to the preliminary Adequacy Comments presented in your letter of August 10, 2012. This amendment application is set for a decision as to approval or denial on October 23, 2012. I will be out of town from October 19 through October 29, 2012. I will be available for discussion up until that time, as will Peter Wayland. After the 19th, should there be a need for ASCI to ask for an extension of 30-days to answer more adequacy review issues, we could be ready to make that extension request and Peter Wayland can do it on behalf of ASCI. However, we hope we have adequately responded to and answered your concerns to the application submittal with this response letter. Please contact either myself or Peter Wayland if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, ��//crwiRob aird, Resource Manager W S I Weiland, Inc. Environmental E Engineering TURNPIKE MINING RESOURCE REGULAR 112 MINING PERMIT APPLICATION M-2004-009-AM-2 Prepared by: Weiland, Inc PO Box 18087 Boulder, CO 80308 Prepared for Asphalt Specialties Co., Inc 10100 Dallas St Henderson, CO 80640-8491 July 20, 2012 Revision 1, October 15, 2012 PO BOX 18087 . BOULDER, CO 8030B ph 303-443-9521 6.4.3 Exhibit C — Pre-Mining and Mining Plan Maps Exhibit C-1, the Pre-Mining Map is unchanged from original permit, M-2005-009. Exhibit C-2, the Mining Plan Map, has been changed to reflect this amendment request. Maps are located in pockets at the back of the text. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.4 Exhibit D - Mining Plan MINING METHODS All of the mining operation will be "dry" mined. Dewatering trenches will be dug around the perimeter of each mining cell and dewatered to Boulder Creek. Stripping and mining will incorporate conventional aggregate mining methods, including use of scrapers to strip overburden, backhoes and scrapers to mine sand and gravel, and haul trucks to move material onsite. This operation will mine and reclaim concurrently wherever and whenever possible. The permit area has been divided into mining cells. The general order of mining activities is given below and will generally follow the numeric sequence assigned to the cells, however unforeseen operational considerations may cause the order of mining to change. Stripping of overburden described below includes stripping of topsoil as well as overburden soils. Topsoil shall be segregated and stockpiled separately from overburden. EARTHMOVING Cell 1 Mining of Cell 1 has been completed. Following mining, the weathered shale bedrock was excavated to increase the reservoir storage volume. Approximately 631,000 yd3 of excavated shale has been stockpiled in Cell 2. Cell 2A Mining has been completed in the western half of Cell 2A. Overburden from the eastern half of Cell 2A will be stripped and stockpiled in the western half. Mining of the east half of Cell 2A will proceed to the east. See Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan, Sheet 2. Cell 2B Overburden from Cell 2B will be stripped and directly replaced in backfill areas of Cell 2A. Mining will generally proceed from west to east. See Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan, Sheet 2. Cell 2C Overburden from Cell 2C will be stripped from the western portion of the Cell (long narrow strip of land) and directly replaced in the backfill areas of Cell 2B. The overburden from the eastern portion of Cell 2C will then be stripped and placed directly into the western portion (long narrow strip of land) backfill area. Mining will generally proceed from south to north. See Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan, Sheet 2. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.4 Exhibit D — Mining Plan Cell 3 Mining has been completed in the western half of Cell 3. Overburden will be striped from the eastern half of Cell 3 and placed in the western half of Cell 3. Mining will proceed from west to east. Cell 4 Prior to mining west of Boulder Creek, a low water crossing will be constructed to allow haul trucks to access Cells 4, 5 and 6. The design for the low-water crossing, utilizing large culverts, was approved by both the USACOE and the CDRMS in 2004 as part of the original approval for this permit. A report titled,"Turnpike Mining Resource Low Water Crossing Design Report" should be contained in the file for this permit. Prior to any mining activity below the water table west of the creek, a hydraulic barrier trench will be constructed as shown on Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan Map, Sheet 1 for the purpose of hydraulically isolating the Plumb & Dailey Ditch from dewatering operations. Hydraulic Barrier Trench Construction The hydraulic barrier trench is to be constructed during the non-irrigation season when the ditch does not typically run (November-March). The plan and detail for the trench are shown on Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan Map, Sheet 1. Construction of the hydraulic barrier trench is to be completed as follows: 1) Begin excavation of a trench approximately 4 ft wide on the northeast portion of the ditch (lowest point) as shown on Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan Map, Sheet 1 and work to the south. 2) During excavation of the trench, begin dewatering as soon as water is intercepted. Excavate a low point for water to drain and keep the excavation drained. 3) Excavate all sand and gravel into haul trucks and haul to processing. This will insure backfill does not get mixed with coarse gravel. 4) Place 40 mil PVC plastic liner into the bottom of trench as shown in the hydraulic barrier detail to create an anchor by wrapping around the ditch side of the keyway approximately 2 ft X 2ft X 2ft. Backfill keyway on both sides of the anchor with native overburden (ML-CL). Do not backfill with coarse materials. 5) Backfill both sides of the PVC liner equally as backfilling proceeds upward. Following construction of the hydraulic barrier trench, overburden will be stripped from Cell 4 and stockpiled in Cell 4 as shown in Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan Map, Sheet 1. As gravel extraction progresses in Cell 4, concurrent backfilling adjacent to oil and gas structures will occur no later than two weeks following excavation, as indicated on Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan Map, Sheet 1 . Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.4 Exhibit D — Mining Plan Cell 5 Prior to mining Cells 5 or 6, construction of the hydraulic barrier trench on the west side of the Plumb and Dailey Ditch will be completed as described in Hydraulic Barrier Trench Construction. Following mining of Cell 4, stripping will begin in Cell 5. Overburden from Cell 5 will be stripped and placed in Cell 4. See Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan Map, Sheet 1. Cell 6 Overburden from Cell 6 will be stripped and placed in Cell 5. Cell 6 is the last cell to be mined. Water Diversions and Impoundments Dewatering trenches will be dug at the toes of the pit slopes to facilitate dry mining. Water will be allowed to gravity feed to the west or east of the active mining areas where it will be pumped from a dug sump to Boulder Creek. According to prior approval by the CDRMS, a hydraulic barrier trench will be dug on both sides of the Plumb and Dailey Ditch, and lined with impermeable synthetic material. The hydraulic barrier will hydraulically isolate the Plumb & Dailey Ditch from the local water table and prevent the dewatering operation from affecting ditch flow. Size of Area to Be Worked at One Time Concurrent reclamation will minimize the area requiring reclamation at any one time. Typically, the largest area to be worked at one time will be less than 15 acres The largest volume of overburden/shale stockpiles that will occur at one time will be no more than approximately 750,000 yd3. Other stockpiles of saleable material will occur onsite beyond above and beyond the 750,000 yd3. Stabilization of Existing Shale Stockpiles Stabilization of the existing shale stockpile will be achieved by revegetation by hydroseeding. Prior to revegetation and using the technique of hydroseeding, ASCI will smooth- out and lessen all slopes (where practical) of the shale stockpiles and will break- up any large chunks of consolidated material to reduce and incorporate them into the slopes with a bulldozer. Horizontal tracking with bulldozer treads will create small linear depressions at a 90-degree angle to the slopes that will catch and retain the hydroseed slurry. This earthwork activity will occur just prior to seeding in order to maintain these depressions. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.4 Exhibit D — Mining Plan The hydroseeding mixture will consist of the attached materials (or similar) and will be applied in the winter months of 2012-2013 (specifically, November 1 through January 31). Triticale grass seed (a hybrid) is suggested due to its hardiness and it's adaptability to poor soil conditions. The seed will be a component of the hydroseeding mixture that will also include Super Tack (or similar), a guar gum based tackifier suitable for steep slopes with superior adhesion, and a wood mulch. The amounts of each constituent in the hydroseeding slurry will be: 3001bs./ac. hydromulch, 101bs./ac. seed and 801bs./ac. guar tackifier. The grass seed will be dormant after Nov. 1 and the sprayed-on hydroseed slurry will "set" (due to the tackifier) over the winter and early Spring and the mixture will be able to take advantage of early Spring wet snow conditions for moisture which will enable good success for germination and establishment of the cover crop. Costs for the stabilization and revegatation of the shale stockpiles are reflected in a revised Exhibit L-Reclamation Costs included with this adequacy response. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 9! P • y b +1 # f t � i - . t �t ' ' � t � i tt a.�. o T < i 1 �' a�� i�. t , 4 " uS . 'IS':11::::,;;;;:bit'; q' a a -; A >^ i • ; a ' 3!` 't. cr rt , n ® 4 ;; t lit . 4 ", r`'Staviithz stu 1A ' 4, t eff r it f h t !ji I 4' -0 d!f 't �� g y � ,t �.� , • � r . � r ' r, f # f l r ai � ,d. x 1t .4 4 A plant species that establishes t: , ,d ft:" , 1 IF. .{ 4 ;f i l o in a preVioutly barren envir ment, 4 i • f [i" 1 I, $ 'ff f, a ; ..f;' t'i ' in a preuart provides solutions4for P r ' ,:,�+ !a \I:15: } . • h' 4 p1 !,, r e.,a Hi erosion conrol,allowing growing '4" ' ' ' �";;'' `� t time for perennial plant establishcpent 04,} � i +% )y. , • y ' i4 . r 4 1, ,c' ,s -,t s OuickGuard is the.GRfEN,solaioal R� d m ' !r k • a _ y! d it. , ,, z tf, Y, . • Non-reseeding annual ` y 1 4 s • Hardy and durable, but not persistent or invasive "f 4- • Cold tolerant,able to grow under cool conditions • € • Larger root mass and more efficient use of soil nutrients than wheat, holds soil and builds soil organic matter • Superior tolerance to disease, salt,and drought compared to wheat .dr y- • Able to adapt to a wide range of soil and moisture conditions • In their study of triticale,the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that it performs better than wheat on dry and sandy soils, infertile soils,acid and alkaline soils,cold soils,and mineral deficient and high-boron soils* • Large seeded; rapid germination(seed size similar to wheat) • Adapts to either fall or spring plantings DISTRIBUTED BY • Dense fibrous root system granite • Drought tolerant • Most hybrid combinations will have fair to excellent EE i winter survival • Good tolerance to foliar disease 1697 west 2100 North Lehi,UT 84043 801-722 - 801-531-1456 Fax 801-768-3967 info68-44r¢graniteseed ram RANTEC CORPORATION PO Box 729 Ranchester. WY 82839 Quality Polymers flANT E C Phone: (307)655-9565 Fax'. (307)655-9528 www.ranteccorp.com MANUFACTURED IN THE USA 25 Years of Innovation! e-mail. rantec@ranteccorp.com SUPER TACK® DISPERSIBLE GUAR BASED TACKIFIER EXCEEDING 100,000 ACRES OF SUCCESS 9,000 acres of wild fire reclamation COMPLETED >: ,Q, „». !!' . !",&:!`,,;.-t, .fir '',t 2. ' � T p -. �. ... Keeps ash and sediment"in place"after Prevent soil and sand rain events for post fire reclamation �SoiIlabilization. erosion and fugitive dust PROVEN PERFORMANCE UNIVERSITY TESTED I Exceeding 100.000 acres of success BY SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SOIL E Over 18 years of superior performance EROSION RESEARCH LABORATORY ® Best tackifier on the market • 84% REDUCTION IN SEDIMENT YIELD FIRE RECLAMATION • R 40% DECREASE IN RUNOFF I Greater than 9,000 acres of success When compared to the untreated bare soil condition on DISPERSES a 2:1 slope, the data demonstrates that an application • Mixes quickly with no lumps. Saves time! of a hydraulic mixture composed of 2,000 lbs of wood fiber mulch, 4,000 gallons of water and 120 lbs of OPTIMAL SLURRY VISCOSITY Super Tack® reduced erosion and sediment delivery ' R Improves pump performance by an average of 84% when exposed to three 10- year storm replications. The same test documented a ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY decrease in runoff volume of 40% c Natural non-toxic ingredients SDSU. September 26, 2003 c Protects soil, equipment, living things _ • • RANTED CORPORATION PO Box 729 Ranchester,WY 82839 Quality Polymers RANTEC Phone. (307)655-9565 Fax: (307)655-9528 www.ranteccorp.com MANUFACTURED IN THE USA 25 Years of Innovation! e-mail. rantec@ranteccorp.com SUPER TACK DISPERSIBLE GUAR BASED TACKIFIER RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE j A non toxic, biodegradable tackifier such as Super Tack® should be used at the minimum application rates shown on the table below. The tackifier will be a natural galactomannan based hydrocolloid treated with dispersant agents for easy field mixing. The dispersing agents shall be non-harmful to the • environment. The product shall not contain anitmony compounds. The tackifier, used in conjuntion with 2000 lbs of virgin wood fiber, must have been previously tested by San Diego State Univeristy and found to reduce sediment yield in a 10-year storm event by an average of 84% or more. Super Tack®can be applied at 15 to 25 lbs in 1,000 gallons of water depending on the equipment capacity. When used as an overspray for straw, mix Super Tack® more concentrated at a rate of 40 lbs in 1,000 gallons of water with 150 to 300 lbs per acre of mulch as a marker. SLOPE: FLAT 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 LB/ACRE: 30-60 40-80 50-100 60-120 70-220 • PACKAGING • Super Tack® available in a variety of packaging and sizes: e 5 lb & 10 lb baggies packaged in 40 lb. cases. • e 50 lb (22.68 kg)weather proof multi-ply plastic bags. IF 20 lb plastic buckets. Call RANTEC CORPORATION for more information and technical assistance for tackifier use. • Revised January 2009©Rantec Corporation TM ARTH SSEN`TIALS ,r .,...,.,.,.. _.. ik. TIC STICK GUAR TACKING AGENT SPECIFICATION WickedStickTM 2500 is a premium organic guar tacking agent. WickedStickTM 2500 provides lubrication to your hydraulic slurry to produce a uniform cover with all types of hydraulic mulches. WickedStickTM 2500 is all natural, biodegradable and organic. WickedStickTM 2500 is simple to use under field conditions and is readily dispersed when poured into water under agitation in a mixing tank. WickedStickTM 2500 works great as a straw tackifier and mulch binder and contains no harmful ingredients to plants or animals. Equipment clean-up is quick and easy by flushing with water. WickedStickTM 2500 is designed for use on slope gradients not exceeding 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) and 100 feet in length, where vegetation establishment will take less than 6 months. All WickedStickTM products come packaged in 50 lb. (22.7 Kg) paper bags or 1000 lb (454 Kg) totes. properties Minimum: 2300 cps Maximum: 2800 cps Moisture, wt. %: 9.0 Protein: 7% maximum pH: 5.5 — 7.5 Particle Size: 100% thru 100 mesh 2 hour Viscosity (2%) 2500 cps Color: Grey to Dark Tan rganic P.O. Box 272627 Fort Collins,CO 80527 Earth www.OrganicEarthIndustries.com 62. 7;71 Ph:970.460460.66 251 Fax: 970.223.9775 6.4.4 Exhibit D — Mining Plan Table 6.4.4.1 - Mining Timetable in Sequence MINING CELL AREA APPROXIMATE TIME UNTIL [ACRES] COMPLETE Cell 1 85 complete Cell 2A 10 2 years Cell 2B 29 4 years Cell 2C 3 1 year Cell 3 4.5 1 year Cell 4 13 1.5 years Cell 5 9 1 Cell 6 1.5 2 Total 155 -12.5 years Nature of Deposit The overburden occurs at an average thickness of 3 ft east of Boulder Creek and an average of 5 ft west of Boulder Creek. The sand and gravel deposit occurs at an average thickness of 10 ft. The overburden is composed of an average 0.5 ft of loam followed by silty and clayey sand to sandy and silty clay. Underlying Stratum The sand and gravel is underlain by shale. Commodities The primary commodities are sand and gravel. There are no incidental commodities. Explosives No explosives will be used in the mining process. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment 6.4.5 Exhibit E — Reclamation Plan Reclamation Summary The reclamation plan for Cell 1 is to construct an approximate 46-surface acre clay-lined reservoir in the central area with an area of elevated backfill on the eastern side of the cell. Reclamation for Celli has been completed. The reclamation plan for Cells 2A-2C will be to backfill all Cells to approximate historic grade with overburden and existing shale (631 ,000 yd3) that has been stockpiled as shown on Exhibit C-2 Mine Plan Map, Sheet 2. Table 6.4.5-1 gives the earthwork mass balance volumes for reclamation of Cells 2A- 2C. Table 6.4.5-1. Cell 2 Earthwork Volumes Cell Total Volume Overburden Volume of Onsite Shale [yd3] Volume [yd3] Backfill Stockpiles (Overburden + (includes onsite Required to [yd3] Pit Run) overburden Bring to stockpiles) Historic Grade [yd3] (equal Pit Run) Cell 2A 345,815 139,140 206,675 136,000 Cell 2B 662,786 307,450 355,336 415,000 Cell 2C 78,106 33,663 44,443 80,000 Total 576,454 631,000 Subtracting the total onsite shale stockpiles from the volume of backfill required in Cells 2A-2C to bring to historic grade results in an excess of 54,546 yd3 of material. The reclamation plan for Cells 3, 4, 5 and 6 will also be to backfill to historic grade. This can be achieved by utilizing onsite overburden and natural fines left over from processing and the excess 54, 546 yd3 of shale from the stockpiles in Cell 2. The volume of gravel to be mined on the west side of Boulder Creek will equal the volume of fines and overburden onsite, which will insure that reclamation will bring the property back to approximate historic grade. Reclamation of the pits will occur concurrently with mining whenever and wherever possible. The general order of reclamation activities is given below and will generally follow the numeric sequence assigned to the cells, however unforeseen operational considerations may cause the order of reclamation to change. Reclamation Plan Maps (Exhibit - F) are located in pockets at the back of the text. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.5 Exhibit E — Reclamation Plan Concurrent Backfillinq Adjacent to Oil and Gas Structures Agreements between ASCI and the owners of oil and gas structures specify that mining can occur no closer than 75 ft from oil and gas well facilities as a temporary condition. ASCI will backfill areas adjacent to oil and gas wells as shown on Exhibit C-2, Mine Plan Maps. Backfilling adjacent to oil and gas structures to a radial distance of 200 ft will occur within two weeks following excavation near oil and gas structures. Backfillinq Cell 2A Stockpiled shale located in Cell 2B as well as overburden from Cell 2B will be used to backfill Cell 2A to approximate historic grade, Backfilling with overburden from Cell 2B will occur as direct replacement of overburden from the stripping process. Backfillinq Cell 2B Stockpiled shale located west of Cell 2A, shale located in Cell 2B, shale located in Cell 2C and overburden from Cell 2B will be used to backfill Cell 2B to approximate historic grade, Aside from the initial stripping, which will backfill Cell 2A, backfilling with overburden from Cell 2B will occur as direct replacement of overburden from the stripping process. Backfillinq of Cell 2C Stockpiled shale located in Cell 2B, shale stockpiled in Cell 2C and overburden from Cell 2C will be used to backfill Cell 2C to approximate historic grade. Aside from the initial stripping, which will backfill Cell 2A, backfilling with overburden from Cell 2B will occur as direct replacement of overburden from the stripping process. Backfillinq of Cell 3 Overburden from Cell 3 and natural fines left over from processing will be used to backfill Cell 3. Backfillinq of Cell 4 Overburden from Cell 4, Cell 5 and natural fines left over from processing will be used to backfill Cell 4. Backfillinq Cell 5 Overburden from Cell 4, Cell 5 and natural fines left over from processing will be used to backfill Cell 5. Cell 5 will be backfilled to approximate historic grade. Backfilling of an area shown on Exhibit F- Reclamation Plan, will be done during the non-irrigation season (November-March) for the purpose of construction of a pipe that will route a 3 cfs pending water right from west of Cell 5 to the Plumb and Dailey Ditch. The design and construction specification for a pipe was previously approved by CDRMS Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.5 Exhibit E — Reclamation Plan Backfillinq of Cell 6 Overburden from Cell 6, Cell 5 and natural fines left over from processing will be used to backfill Cell 6. Topsoil Replacement Topsoil replacement will begin following backfilling and rough-grading on each appropriate cell. Surface soil will be replaced to a minimum depth of 0.5 ft. A total of 158,914 yd3 will be replaced over approximately 197 acres. Interior haul roads will be ripped, graded, and surface soiled in preparation for revegetation. Seeding and Fertilizing Currently, shortgrass prairie is the dominant plant species. At present, the area is grazed all year around. Cover in the pasture is sparse all year as a result of the continuous grazing of cattle. The proposed seeding areas are shown on Exhibit F — Reclamation Plan Map. The recommended seeding method is by drill and seeding rates assume this method. The species composition of the seed mixture recommended for reclamation is shown in Table 6.4.5-4 below. Table 6.4.5-4 Recommended Seed Mixture Species (Variety) Rate -pure live Native/ W/C seed(PLS) Introduced Season lbs/ac Thickspike wheatgrass 8.0 to 10.0 Native Cool (Critana) ' Sideoats grama (Vaughn) 5.0 to 7.0 Native Warm Switchgrass (Nebraska-28) 4.0 to 6.0 Native Warm Alfalfa (Nomad) 3.0 to 5.0 Introduced NA I TOTAL 20.0 to 28.0 Based on this seed mixture, an application rate of approximately 20.0 to 28.0 lbs PLS/ac will be used. Topsoil should be disked prior to seeding. It is recommended that fertilizer be utilized for reclamation. A standard application of fertilizer will be used and applied at a rate of 250 lbs/ac as shown in Table 6.4.5- 5. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.5 Exhibit E — Reclamation Plan Table 6.4.5-5. Fertilizer Application Fertilizer Standard rate lbs/acre Diammonium phosphate (18-46-0) 250 (46-53% available P2O5 with 18-21% N) Fertilizer will not be used near the edge of the pond, since the possibility of nitrate contamination in the pond water exists. The total disturbed area to be seeded is approximately 138 acres. The total area to be fertilized is approximately 138 acres. Seeding and fertilizing will be completed after the overburden and topsoil is replaced, smoothed to conform to the existing topography and disked. Optimal periods of seeding are in the fall (after November 1st) or in the spring from late March up to April 30th. Mulching will not be completed as the quality soils and availability of water should facilitate the rapid establishment of perennial grasses. Following revegetation, weed management strategies will be implemented to facilitate and achieve native grassland. Years 1 thru 5 following revegetation will include an aggressive mowing program to prevent the growth and establishment of weeds, specifically, eight noxious weeds including: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) and Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) as mandated by Colorado State Law (35- 5.5CRS1990, 1996). If needed, herbicide application will be applied as needed to further control these weeds. Herbicides will also be used to control salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) if it becomes established in the reclaimed area. Table 6 presents recommended herbicides, application rate, and time of application for each of the 9 species. It may be necessary to replant treated areas. Table 6.4.5-6. Recommended Herbicide Application Table Weed Species Herbicide Application Rate Application Time Canada thistle Curtail 2-3 qt/ac October or 1 mo after last mowing Spring or fall, during rosette to bud Clopyralid 2/3- 1 pint/ac growth stages in spring Spring prebud to early bud growth 2,4-D 11b ai/ac stages Spring prebud to early bud growth picloram llb ai/ac stages Dalmation toadflax picloram 0.5 - 1 lb ai/ac Fall picloram + 2,4-D Pre-bloom or fall Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.5 Exhibit E - Reclamation Plan Spring rosette to early-bolt growth Diffuse knapweed Tordon 1 pint/ac stages Banvel/Vanquish/ Spring rosette to early-bolt growth Clarity + 2,4-D 0.5 + 1 qt/ac stages Spring rosette to early-bolt growth Curtail 2-3 qt/ac stages Spring rosette to early-bolt growth Transline 2/3- 1 pint/ac stages Leafy spurge Tordon 1 qt/ac Fall 1 month after last mowing Tordon + 2,4-D 0.5-0.75 + 1 qt/ac Fall 1 month after last mowing Vanquish/Clarity 1 qt/ac Fall 1 month after last mowing Musk thistle Curtail 0.25 lb ai/ac Spring 10-14 days before bolting dicamba 1 lb ai/ac Spring 10-14 days before bolting Fall, apply to rosettes when other plants picloram 0.25 lb ai/ac are dormant Fall on dormant plants, need to reseed Russian knapweed Curtail during following year picloram 1 lb ai/ac Anytime Spotted knapweed picloram 1 lb ai/ac Anytime dicamba or 2,4-D 1 lb ai/ac picloram or Yellow toadflax dicamba 1 lb ai/ac Spring during flowering Saltcedar imazapyr Late summer early fall foliar application imazapyr or triclopyr To resprouted stems imazapyr or To perimeters of cut stems immediately triclopyr after cutting Sources: Colorado Natural Areas Program. 2000. Creating an Integrated Weed Management Plan. http://parks.state.co.us/cnap, and Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. No date. Weed Management for Small Rural Acreages. No. 3.106. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/Natres/03106.htm I Alternative Reclamation Plan For bonding purposes, an alternative reclamation plan would grade the 630,000 yd3 of stockpiled shale over the surface of the mining cells in Cell 2 following stripping and stockpiling of topsoil. The side slopes would be graded at 3:1 and would result in an increase in ground surface elevation of 8-9 ft. Topsoil would be placed over the top of the graded shale and revegetation would be established in the same manner as the primary reclamation plan. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.7 Exhibit G —Water Information Past drilling and logging of holes on this property by others reveal that the top of the alluvial groundwater occurs at an average of 6-7 ft below natural ground surface. Shale, at an average depth of 16 feet on this site, defines the bottom of the alluvial aquifer. The mining operation is to be a dry operation, meaning that dewatering trenches will be constructed at the toes of the pit slopes to prevent accumulation of groundwater in the pit excavations. Water will flow through the dewatering trenches to sumps located at the lowest point of the trench, where pumps are to be set. The predicted maximum dewatering rate is 300-500 gallons per minute. Mine dewatering effluent will be pumped from discharge points to Boulder Creek. A complete search of all State Engineer's well records and a thorough search on the ground and with aerial photography have shown that no alluvial wells exist within 600 ft of the limits of mining. There are no nearby wells or significant bodies of water that are expected to be adversely impacted by the operational dewatering. Depletions to Boulder Creek will occur due to water taken with the mined product, usage for dust control (0.1 acre-feet/month), and evaporative loss. Impacts to Boulder Creek are addressed and compensated for by the Substitute Water Supply Plan. Replacement water will come from a fully consumable lease agreement with the City of Louisville via Coal Creek. Please refer to the Substitute Water Supply Plan (SSP) submitted to the State Engineer's Office for further detail. ASCI is in the process of updating the SSP to reflect the current mine plan. Backfilling of Cell 2 with shale may cause an increase in water table elevations to the east of the permit boundary. For the purpose of monitoring water levels following shale placement, monitor wells shall be installed. The locations of the wells are shown in Exhibits C-2 and F. Due to the impermeable nature of the clay shale backfill material proposed for Cell 2, degradation to local groundwater quality is not expected to occur. This floodplain boundary is currently undergoing a LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) process that will remove all of the area within the permit area from the floodplain that contains the shale stockpiles and would be elevated above the current grade if the Alternative Reclamation Plan were to be implemented. ASCI is participating in the LOMR process based on the Alternative Reclamation Plan possibility. Following is a letter written by the consultant working for ASCI and the Town of Erie outlining the current status of the LOMR process in the permit area. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 F.N9 IN i F .rN I IPJ r.n Hsu T�rJr FvriweFas October 10,2012 Eric Scott Environmental Protection Specialist Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 Re: Turnpike Sand and Gravel Mine, M2004-009 Dear Mr. Scott, As a follow up to my letter to you on July 19.2012,this letter is to inform you that since July, Martin/Martin has worked very closely with the Town of Eric, FEMA_and Weld County with the technical analysis associated with the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for the reach of Boulder Creek Floodplain that is adjacent to the Turnpike Sand and Gravel Mine. As a result of this effort,the floodplain and floodway boundaries, as well as the Base Flood Elevations have been revised and agreed upon by the Weld County Floodplain Manager(Clay Kimmi)and by FEMA's reviewer(James Lindsay). The executed"Overview& Concurrence Form." indicating Weld County's approval is attached for your reference. The final LOMR submittal has been made to FEMA, and the public notice for the LOMR has been mailed to adjacent property owners. It is anticipated that FEMA will provide final formal approval in approximately 30 days. When we receive final approval, I will send a copy to Rob Laird of ASCI. He indicated he will send you a copy as supplementary information for their mining efforts. As you probably know, it may take several months before FEMA makes the approved Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRM)available for use by the public. As a convenience. we have provided the updated floodplain mapping to ASCI for use with their mining permit exhibits. For your convenience.attached to this letter is the revised FIRM and floodplain workmap from the final LOMR application. Please feel free to call me if you have an> questions on this matter. Sincerely. • Mark Thornbrough. CFM. P.F. Associate Attachments 12499 V,EET CcLvsa • L.«22-NCO. COLGPAr,n 80215 • 303-431-610❑ 6.4.12 Exhibit L— Reclamation Costs Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 N O O O O O N 0 0 0 O O d' O O (O O h 'Cr r N- N- N O O O r (() O O O O N 0 .Cr M N. O CO CO O M d' O) aD O O O 0000 OI: n n O M d' ui O (0 OO) Nci r 0 0 O N in (n O O co NMCOLO N scar d' O) CO d' CO to O 0 O r W M 0 d- M d' W r CO d' NCO CO W d' d' O) 0 (n ' (n N T N N co ( O (A O) (D a U W c4 r M O W L6 O COM r N C) SO 69 CO EA r EA EA 0 r 69 r CO N N M V •t- 0 (A (A EA r V) W 69 EA EA O) 5 S O S S EA 69 Vi r S 0 0 r 1' 0 I- r o o co r co In .E•, O CO tin O) ON O r (O O ♦- C O O T- O coco 2 O O M co 7 co O o ° 5 at a moo mr- o0 00o coo o co a a. CO 0 0 i0 CO 0 0 CO M Cr. 0 0 Cr) 2 w o Lei o o vi o O 0 ai r 0 S of 0 O sr- 0 S (0 u) 0 Sr co (0 co m U O (9 (0 O ER CO !n <» J J S N E» O N ~ O .. m C > U J d d > C 0 0 O c �n N ` O O O >..C ° 'O (t co E >.L 0. >.T L U U 4- It O rO R o 2 = N o O N O U °' aai a g • u) W Q -0 c c tI N Bo c _o O N J — L 0 " CO (d N N ~ U o o N L a CO) CO O C] .0 . Lo N N C = o c u) ° 0 p aE w X o o m o U -0 -o UJ LL y > a) � Q U — °� 'p0 u) 2v w O .L O) .M-. (a J w ti) c O N U C >i O O Y O c 6 t (o .d r w C O J 0 2 .c ≥ .N. O w U 00 C) N 2 Y O 3 x N 0 U Q U O co N ¢ N 7 •J a F- O 2 E 0 O C N y — (p U Ill U in a w v v U U a a) a o a) E %Li �_ E r m d oo x ' cc (oi aci p m y c o L 0 .. _ N 0 _ '� • a o a c m O 0 O 0 E CO oa (n ao .1.±, > O ° x aU Ufa a \ o0 3c o O m -o 0 m a o — b) F- 0 — Z (n c C 0 £ Q c).o 0 In M L o a' C N . U J LY (MO U U N F" a C ct 0 r C) N 0 (O a) o 1-15N 2 0 °.) 2 top T E a a`) `m I- a) 0 0 5 0o W — U p Q _ c O m c co E O m m -0 a3 > � c E a m C C m Uw � .ot _0 o .a C 'm5 0 U 0c01F-- OWMoa 3 � UUr Uw a - aHO wa I— Wo E N-- N co d (0 o r N 0 O) 0 r re > r N M V r N F- b K " o r o k 3 Z W 6.4.1 Exhibit S— Permanent Man Made Structures Permanent Structures within 200 ft The following structures have been located on Exhibit C-2, the Mine Plan (Sheets 1 and 2) and corresponding numbers can be found on the sheets or in the legend. 1. FOUNDATION ENERGY OIL & GAS WELL - CINQUE 6-31 1a. FOUNDATION ENERGY FLOW LINE SERVICING WELL CINQUE 6-31 2. RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, BAUER 3. NOBLE ENERGY OIL & GAS WELL - ARMSTEAD 9-31 3a. NOBLE ENERGY FLOW LINE SERVICING WELL ARMSTEAD 9-31 3b. NOBLE ENERGY TANKS SERVICING WELL ARMSTEAD 9-31 3c. NOBLE ENERGY SEPERATOR SERVICING WELL ARMSTEAD 9-31 4. NOBLE ENERGY OIL & GAS WELL - ARMSTEAD 8-31 4a. NOBLE ENERGY FLOW LINE SERVICING WELL ARMSTEAD 8-31 4b. NOBLE ENERGY SEPERATOR SERVICING WELL ARMSTEAD 8-31 4.c NOBLE ENERGY TANKS SERVICING WELL ARMSTEAD 8-31 5. RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE & OUTBUILDINGS, TIMMRECK 6. LEFT HAND WATER DISTRICT WATER MAIN 7. RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE & OUTBUILDINGS, QUINN 8. ENCANA 6" HIGH PRESSURE GAS 9. ANADARKO 6" HIGH PRESSURE GAS 10.UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC, UNITED POWER 11.FOUNDATION ENERGY OIL & GAS WELL - CINQUE 5 12.FOUNDATION ENERGY FLOW LINE SERVICING WELL - CINQUE 5 13. PLUMB AND DAILEY DITCH Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 6.4.1 Exhibit S- Permanent Man Made Structures 14. OVERHEAD ELECTRIC, UNITED POWER 15. UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC, UNITED POWER 16. NOBLE ENERGY OIL & GAS STORAGE TANK 17. NOBLE ENERGY OIL & GAS STORAGE TANK 18. ANADARKO OIL & GAS STORAGE TANKS 19. FOUNDATION ENERGY OIL & GAS WELL - CINQUE 3 20. ANADARKO 6" HIGH PRESSURE GAS LINE 21 . TOWN OF ERIE 36" SANITARY SEWER MAIN 22. TOWN OF ERIE REUSE WATER LINE 23. TOWN OF ERIE POTABLE WATER LINE 24. STATE HIGHWAY 52 - CDOT 25. OVERHEAD POWER LINES - UNITED POWER 26. TOWN OF ERIE GAS LINE The setbacks and backfilling plans identified on Exhibits C-2 and F for oil and gas operations are based on those plans agreed upon in a Surface Use Agreement executed by ASCI and the Oil & Gas operators. A Geotechnical Slope Stability Report was previously submitted, in which safe setbacks for mining from permanent man-made structures were identified. All setbacks shown on Exhibits C-2 and F are greater than or equal to setbacks identified in the Geotechnical Slope Stability Report as safe. Turnpike Mining Resource M-2004-009-AM-2 Regular 112 Amendment Revision 1 October 15, 2012 AFFIDAVIT OF RECEIPT State of Colorado County of Weld BEFORE ME, a representative of the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, on this ,7±1,- day of C 2 f ,— ,20 /• , I did receive a copy of the Adequacy Review Comments letter, revised Exhibit Texts and revised Exhibit Maps for DRMS Turnpike Mining Resource Amendment No. 2 for public display. RECEIVED Weld County Clerk to the Board I. ' ,'7 2oi2 / L ( WELD COUNTY L-C/G , COMMISSIONERS Signature FS i1,rc C (�r 5'ck Name (printed) IC - tlo- 12 Title (printed) �c. - E JJar- ST-.6446,s7 S L(c M, .Gv -c ke A -tom rT c G- -As _ -to . 'li-vd6ciug6 (�o 99q - aot� oic -/7-i3, C� �i: i5 FILE CONTAINS OVERSIZED MAP PLEASE SEE ORIGINAL FILE Hello