My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-08-17_PERMIT FILE - M2016033
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2016033
>
2016-08-17_PERMIT FILE - M2016033
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/5/2020 3:45:16 AM
Creation date
8/18/2016 10:35:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2016033
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/17/2016
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Holsinger Law, LLC
To
DRMS
Email Name
PSH
WHE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
Page 15 of 20 <br /> 99. Geotech assessment does not adequately demonstrate that offsite areas will not be adversely <br /> affected by blasting as required by rule 6.4.4(i) & rule 6.5(4) <br /> (N.Reed, G.McCowen) <br /> 100. Ex g does not adequately address whether impoundment ponds will comply with co water <br /> laws related to existing water rights as req by rule 3.6(1)(a) <br /> (N. Reed) <br /> 101. Ex s-fails to identify ltc rd as a permanent, man-made structure loc within 200'of affected <br /> lands <br /> (N. Reed) <br /> 102. Ex t-op should provide a spill prevention & control plan for toxic & hazardous substances <br /> (N. Reed) <br /> 103. Ex t-doesn't address required emergency notif of a failure or imminent failure of any <br /> impoundment, embankment, stockpile, or slope per rule 8-failure of pond would pose signif <br /> potential for danger to persons/property in ltc watershed downgradient <br /> (N.Reed) <br /> 104. Geotech assessment doesn't provide a geotechnical eval of geologic hazards in vicinity of <br /> affected lands to show these areas wouldn't be de-stabilized or exacerbated by mining or <br /> reclam areas,per rule 6.5(1) <br /> (N. Reed) <br /> 105. Per rule 115(4)(d),proposed operation contrary to laws & regulations of state of co (will <br /> obstruct ltc rd-contradicts co law related to ingress/egress easements;proposed sed ponds <br /> may be contrary to co water rights laws related to water impoundment in ltc watershed; <br /> proposed access pt @ hwy 115 w/in few 100'of ltc rd-contradicts regulations of state hwy <br /> department related to distance between access pts) <br /> (N. Reed, C. Kimble, C. Bernstein) <br /> 106. Should deny permit because per rule 115(4)(e), op has not obtained structure agreement or <br /> provided engineering evaluation for ltc road <br /> (N.Reed) <br /> 107. Should deny permit because per rule 115(4)(g), the proposed reclamation plan does not <br /> conform to requirements of section 34-32.5-116-duties of operators-reclamation plans <br /> (N.Reed) <br /> 108. Per 34-32.5-116(4)(e), all refuse shall be disposed of in a manner that controls unsightliness <br /> or the deleterious effects of such refuse-but plant fines stockpile will be stored w/in quarry <br /> op area & clearly visible from properties w/in eagles nest <br /> (N.Reed) <br /> F Co 0 \ <br /> 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3567 F 303.832.8106 http://mining.state.co.us <br /> John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Robert W. Randall, Executive Director I Virginia Brannon, Director '* , of <br /> 1876/ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.