2016-09-26_REVISION - M1980244 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPLICATION 1. Permitted Acreage • Item 3.2,p. 1: This item lists 6068 acres as that to be permitted. Based on concurrent review of your acreage release request(AR-03)and Figure 1 of the AM-11.1 submittal, there may be a discrepancy in permit acreage. There are two areas in Section 24: one parallel to Shelf Road, and the other crosses Hwy 67; that were included in the approved Amendment 10 (AM-10)permit boundary and are now being excluded from AM-11/AM-11.1. These two areas were not included in the AR-02 release request, but appear to be incorporated into the subsequent AR-03 request. The Division may request clarification as on this issue as part of the AR-03 review. RESPONSE. Post-AR-03 the total acreage in the Amended Amendment 11 application is 5,946.7 acres. The AR-02 request was withdrawn because it was brought to our attention by DRMS that the parcels of land near Shelf Road mentioned above had not been included in the acreage reduction request. This situation was remedied by submittal of AR-03, which included all parcels of land excluded from the A-10 boundary, which were counted when the total acreage was calculated. Newmont is happy to answer further questions, as needed. Please let us know if DRMS needs further clarification. 6.4 SPECIFIC EXHIBIT REQUIREMENTS—112d DESIGNATED MINING OPERATIONS 6.4.3 EXHIBIT C—Pre-mining & Mining Plan Map(s) of Affected Lands 2. General comment on maps • Drawings C-1 and C-la have a discrepancy between the scale bar(roughly 1.6 inches= 0.25 miles, or 1"= 825') and the 1:52,000 (1" =4,333.33 `) shown in the title block. It should be noted that Rule 6.2.1(2)(e) requires the scale be between I inch= 50 feet and 1 inch=660 feet. However,this Rule also states maps "shall be prepared at a scale that is appropriate to clearly show all elements that are required to be delineated by the Act". The maps as submitted appear to meet the latter requirement. As such, a change in scale is not required at this time, but please address the discrepancy. RESPONSE: We have addressed the discrepancy and have generated revised Drawings C-I and C-I a, which are included in Attachment 1 to this response. • Contour intervals are not labeled. The use of similar colors is confusing(i.e., the green for"CC&V Gold Mining Company" is very similar to the green for"City of Cripple Creek", and the blue for"City of Victor" is essentially the same as the blue for"AM 11 Boundary"). Please label contours,provide contour interval, and increase the color palette to reduce confusion and uncertainty. RESPONSE: Drawings have been revised to include labeled contours and a modified color palette. See Attachment]. 3. Drawing C-1 • See Comment#2- Contour intervals are not labeled. The use of similar colors is confusing(i.e.,the green for"CC&V Gold Mining Company" is very similar to the green for"City of Cripple Creek", and the blue for"City of Victor" is essentially the Page 3 of 30