Laserfiche WebLink
Follow-up Adequacy Review (AM-11) – Elliott Russell <br />October 18, 2016 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />demonstrate that a fence is sufficient to protect the public from this hazard within such close <br />proximity of CR 82. The Division believes a form of physical barrier is needed to prevent any <br />vehicular incidences from occurring. If a physical barrier is needed, coordination with Teller <br />County could be necessary if it falls within the county right of way. <br /> <br />52. Drawing F-1 contains contour lines with different line weights/color on the Squaw Gulch Valley <br />Leach Facility and on portions of the Arequa Gulch Valley Leach Facility as compared to the <br />other post-mining contour lines throughout the map. Please explain the discrepancy between <br />these contour lines or revise Drawing F-1 and re-submit the map for further review in accordance <br />with Rule 6.4.6(a). <br /> <br />53. Pursuant to Rule 6.4.6(a), please depict the areas where the Applicant intends to plant trees as a <br />part of the reclamation plan on Drawing F-1, similar to the depiction on Drawing CCVSA11-3 in <br />Exhibit L. <br /> <br />54. The permit boundary on Drawing F-1 seems to be slightly shifted to the north as compared to <br />Figures 1 and 2 submitted with the amendment to the amendment and Exhibit C maps submitted <br />with the adequacy responses. This shift is easily identifiable near the curve along Highway 67 <br />near the Mollie Kathleen. Please revise the map to reflect the intended permit boundary <br />(matching all current maps) and re-submit Drawing F-1 for further review. <br /> <br />