APPCOR11626 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Derry Ferguson - 5 - June 21, 1993 ( The Local permit is limited to 150 acres of disturbed area. Applicant states on page 1-1 that DMG permit will be for "approximately 156 acres". Please revise the State application accordingly, in both the document text and in any corresponding maps. 1.,, The local permit was also granted on the condition that "The ~/` Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board hold a public meeting in the ~,~.~ Durango area for the purpose of discussion of the environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures of this project." Please address whether this meeting was held. (f) Copies of th MSHA permit ary~_~ County sewage disposal permit, " cited by the applicant on pages 3=7 and 3-8, weren't found-in -~ Appendix 3-4. Please provide. On pages 3-8 of the application, the applicant apparently has notified the public through the newspaper publication required by 2.03.12 and 2.07.3(2) that it is applying for a renewal of an existing permit. This is wrong, and may have misled the public. Publication should re-occur, to provide notice of application of new permit. Please address. X7,8. Responses to Rule 2.04.3(2)(b>(1) seem inadequate (page 4-2>. In the L, first paragraph at the top of the page, the applicant states "vegetation ~~ condition is considered "poor for these species." Applicant should state t~~ who considers it poor and in what document this is stated. Further, in the third paragraph of the same page, the applicant states "the surface water and ground water resources of the permit area are considered minimal." Applicant should state who considers it minimal, and where it is documented as such. " ,Z9. The applicant, on page 4-3 and under the coal mining discussion, should describe the names of the coal seams as required by 2.04.3(3)(b), not i,~l just reference another part of the application. Per 2.04.3<3)(d), there should be a better description of the approximate dates of past mining. ~d ditionally, the location and extent of disturbed acreage from previous operations, per 2.04.3(3)(f) is not provided. ,w. Under Rule 2.04.4(1), the applicant is required to describe cultural, historic and significant archaeological sites. The application, on page 4-4, states "there are no documented cultural properties on the proposed permit area." However, in Appendix 4-l, there is a 12/1/92 letter from the Colorado State Historical Preservation Officer to the Division describing the destruction of archaeological site M5LP356 by mining operations, and that portions of this site are still present. Please revise the response, to reflect this letter. c (//' i~ ~ 31. Durango DOW raised concerns regarding mitigation of impacts to elk & deer `'u ~ habitat within permit area. Per Rule 2.04.11, please provide written /documentation regarding resolution of this issue to DOW's satisfaction. M. Responding to Rule 2.05.2 (page 5-1), the applicant describes a "steady t t 't" Th' 't" h ld b b tt d f' d t f 1 r~ 'l _ t s a e pi is pi s ou e e er a ine in erms o area extent, volume, depth, and pit wall angles. There should be better descriptions of the phrases "move along the outcrop", "planned highwall limit", and "planned maximum ratio limit".