My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-10-03_REVISION - M1980244
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2016-10-03_REVISION - M1980244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2020 6:56:38 PM
Creation date
10/4/2016 9:15:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/3/2016
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Newmont / CC&V
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM11
Email Name
TC1
ERR
AME
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.
/
36
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
40. On page 3 of the Wildlife Protection Plan, the Applicant states that access to the tops of high- <br /> walls should be restricted by some form of fencing or berms. Fencing appears to be a reasonable <br /> preventative measure, but please explain how a berm at the top of a highwall will prevent <br /> wildlife from encountering the hazard. Please commit to constructing a fence at the tops of <br /> highwalls that are not intended to be advanced, graded, or entirely backfilled. Please provide <br /> details on the type and construction on such wildlife fencing. <br /> RESPONSE: Fencing was initially included in the WPP as it was a provision in the <br /> Reclamation Plan. However, CC&V agrees with DRMS, and neither a three wire fence, <br /> nor an earthen berm will be sufficient in deterring wildlife from encountering a <br /> highwall. This part of the WPP has been removed. A revised version of the WPP is <br /> included as Attachment 4. <br /> 41. On page 5 of the Wildlife Protect Plan,the Applicant lists various examples of possible <br /> irregularities in reclaimed lands to promote wildlife habitat. Please clarify the maximum side <br /> slope gradients of the dozer pockets and mottes. <br /> RESPONSE: Dozer pockets would be relatively small shallow depressions to collect <br /> water and develop localized microclimate/habitat. Side slope gradients would be on the <br /> order of 2:1 and only,two to three feet deep. <br /> 42. The Division recommends switching the order of Procedure 6 and Procedure 7 of the Appendix <br /> A(of the Wildlife Plan) Procedures for Handling and Reporting Wildlife Incidents to the <br /> Colorado Division of Wildlife. <br /> RESPONSE: Newmont agrees with DRMS, and believes it is appropriate to photo <br /> document an ill or deceased animal prior to burial. Procedure 6 and Procedure 7 have <br /> been switched A revised version of the WPP is included cis Attachment 4. <br /> 43. Please verify that the contact person and phone numbers are current in Procedure 8 of the <br /> Appendix A(of the Wildlife Plan) Procedures for Handling and Reporting Wildlife Incidents to <br /> the Colorado Division of Wildlife. <br /> RESPONSE: The current version of the WPP lists Tim Kroening— Office 719-227- <br /> 5200, Cell 719-439-963. This information was verified as correct. <br /> 44. Please update the Appendix A(of the Wildlife Plan) Procedures for Handling and Reporting <br /> Wildlife Incidents to the Colorado Division of Wildlife,to include routing a completed copy of <br /> the report to the Division. <br /> RESPONSE: A recent copy,of the Handling and Reporting Protocol (Appendix A o_f <br /> the WPP) was reviewed, updated, and approved by CPW. A copy,may,be found in <br /> Attachment 4. <br /> 45. In Section 4.4 of the Appendix 13 Baseline Technical Report for Soil and Biological Resources <br /> in Volume I11, Arcadis states that no underground surveys for bats were conducted during the <br /> 2015 site visit. Please clarify if any surveys were conducted at the surface for bats. Please also <br /> clarify whether further surveys will be conducted for bats. <br /> RESPONSE: CPW has reviewed and commented on the WPP, (see Attachment 5) and <br /> has approved the site survey methods for bats. Members of the Newmont Sustainability <br /> and External Relations team have conducted surveys for bats prior to the closing of <br /> certain shafts,prospects, and tunnels with the assistance of CPW(as per the WPP <br /> Section 2.3). No additional surveys were conducted in the active mining area with the <br /> Page 13 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.