My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10641
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10641
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:27:00 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:12:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996084
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Name
Initial adequacy review
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
~~~b • • <br />60. ~~'Pl~ e refer to the comments under Ru12 2.05.6(2) Fish and Wildlife Plan. <br />• Rule 2.04.12 Prime Farmland Investigation ~ flT.1Q,~ 6Y <br />61.0 According to the soil survey submitted by LCC and consultation with Imaortant Farmland <br />Inventory of Colorado Soil conservation Service, October 1982, there are no soils <br />identified within the permit azea that aze considered prime farmland. <br />Rule 2.04.13 Annual Reclamation Report ~~,~ <br />%X~``'~~62. The wording under this heading does not make sense. Please correct it and include text <br />~ which commits to providing the information required by (a)-(f) including a map according <br />to the standards of Rule 2.10. <br />. f, Rule 2.05.2 Operation Plan-Estimated area for Life of Operation ~~~ <br />ti ~~ <br />~,(, ~ 63. Pursuant to Section 2.05.2(1) of the Board's Regulations, please provide a few words <br />about the proposed contour mining. These could be inserted in the paragraph on <br />application page 2.05-3 that starts "Life of mine operations will include...". <br />Rule 2.05.30 Production Methods and Equipment <br />~\ 64. This section of the application is in compliance with the Rules. <br />• ~ <br />Rule 2.05.3(2) Operation Descriation ~~~ <br />c ~0 65. A discrepancy exists between the "extent of Surface Mine Disturbance" line shown on <br />~)(b ` _ ~ Surface Mine Post-mining Topography Map 2.05.4-1 and the "Preliminary Extent of <br />~~,"~r~- Surface Mining" line shown on Figure 1 of Exhibit 13. Please correct this. <br />66. It appears from Figure 1 of Exhibit 13 that only 2 fills (] and 4) would came close to the <br />~ lowermost extent of the surface mine. Map 2.05.4-1, however, show fills being <br />constructed to much higher elevations. Please address this discrepancy in fill construction <br />~ _,,,,Q elevations. <br />C/~,. 67. It appears from Surface Mine Post-mining Topography Map 2.05.4-I that the aeeas <br />between fills ]and 4, 4 and 6, 3 and 5, 5 and 8, and 9, 7 and 8 will be affected by <br />mining (as shown by the blue "annual disturbance area" lines), and then reconstructed to <br />~\ ~ the post-mining topography shown on the map. While Exhibit 13 discusses the <br />,wg. geotechnical design criteria for the fills, the only information provided in the application <br />lN~ jr pertaining to the reclamation of the non-fill areas of the surface mine is found in three <br />/ sentences on page 2.05-10 (the first of these being "After the contour cut..."), and on <br />page 2.05-40. <br />. Section 2.05.3(6) of the Regulations requires the application to explain the removal, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.