My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11636
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11636
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:57 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:22:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
4/27/1981
Doc Name
PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY REVIEW FN C-041-81
From
MLR
To
GEX COLORADO INC
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.
/
23
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
<br />Page Six • <br />Preliminary Adequacy Review <br />GEX - Roadside 6 Cameo Mines <br />April 27, 1981 <br />6. Topographic maps submitted must reflect the as-built condition of aII <br />existing roads. Otherwise, plan-and-profile drawings must be submitted for <br />these roads. For example, portions of Access Road ~3B, Exhibit 9A, are <br />evidently drawn over pre-existing topography that does not reflect the as- <br />built road layout. <br />7. The applicant must discuss why a 16-foot wide "public road" has been <br />provided, as shown on Exhibit 9A. Wi11 this road be open to the public and <br />allow public access to the permit area during the Life of the mine? What <br />is the purpose of this road and what is its maintenance and permanency status? <br />8. Access Roads 4A and 4B are obviously substantially longer than the 3/10 <br />mile claimed in Table 2.05.3E of the mine plan. The applicant should correct <br />or explain this discrepancy. <br />9. Access Road ~8 has not been identified on Exhibit 12A as stated in the <br />Mine Plan, Table 2.05.3E. <br />10. The applicant's description of the roads to be used (Table 2.05.3E of the <br />MRP) should include a statement of the purpose of each road, the estimated <br />frequency of usage of each road, and the type of vehicles expected to use <br />each road. <br />11. The construction dates listed in Table 2.05.3C do not match those shown <br />in Table 2.05.3E for haul roads N1 and q2 and access road H1. The applicant <br />should crorrect this discrepancy. <br />12. Figure 2.05.3A of the MRP shows that a 9-inch-thick roadbase is typical of <br />all haul and access roads; yet, Table 2.05.3E lists 1 1/2 inches of gravel <br />as the thickness of surfacing material for haul and access roads. The <br />applicant should correct this discrepancy. <br />13. The applicant must provide a discussion of the methods employed to <br />stabilize all roadway cuts and embankment fills against erosion. <br />14. The applicant has not discussed the methods used in constructing the <br />embankment for access Road N1. The applicant should provide a discussion of <br />embankment construction methods similar to that provided for Access Road ~2. <br />15. The applicant has inadequately dealt with roadway drainage. The applicant <br />must show on a plan view the Locations of all roadway drainage ditches and <br />cross-drainage culverts. The applicant must also provide sufficient hydro- <br />logic design calculations for road ditches, cross-drainage culverts, and <br />stream crossing culverts to demonstrate the adequacy of the drainage features <br />to pass the peak runoff from the appropriate storm event specified under <br />4.03.1(4), 9.03.2(4), or 4.03.3(4). The applicant must provide typical cross- <br />sections showing the placement details of road cross-drainage culverts. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.