Laserfiche WebLink
<br />were any bridges planned for the portions of the Lorencito Canyon haul road that cross <br />the perennial portions of the canyon's stream, or the drainages tributary to the canyon. <br />The response was that no bridges were planned, but that culverted fords are proposed in <br />some cases. <br />Section 4.03.1(2)(c) cleazly states "Fords of perennial streams shall not be approved." As <br />such, the Division cannot approve of any haul road fords, culverted or otherwise, of <br />Lorencito Canyon's perennial reaches. Please revise the application to reflect this. <br />137. The applicant's response did not fully address the Division's concerns. It is understood <br />that haulage of taw coal from the mine to the New Elk processing facility will not occur <br />over Colorado Highway 12. This was not a concern. What the Division is concerned <br />with, however, is the volume of traffic entering and leaving the highway at the mine <br />access road junction during mobilization of the equipment described on page 2.05-1 of <br />the application. This equipment includes continuous miners, roof bolters, scoops, <br />conveyors, mantrips, graders, loaders, dozers, haul trucks, drills, and water wcks. The <br />Division is also concerned with the volume of traffic that will occur during conswction <br />of the railroad spur, the loadout facility, the portals and the support buildings. <br />Our concern is that during the construction and equipment mobilization phase of the <br />operation, there may be a sufficient volume of traffic entering and leaving the highway <br />at the mine access road junction that the Stale Department of Highways (or Las Animas <br />County) may request some modifcation to the highway for the protection of public safety. <br />Please state whether the Colorado Department of Transportation, Las Animas County, the <br />Colorado Highway Patrol, or any other agency that may be charged with the protection <br />of public safety along the State Highway has any concerns with the proposed volume of <br />traffic that the Division anticipates occurring during the construction and equipment <br />mobilization phase of the operation. <br />138. Section 4.03.2(1)(f)(i) of the Board's Regulations requires a certification report be <br />submitted to the Division upon completion of construction of any access road. This <br />regulation requires the certification to state that the road has been constructed as designed <br />and in accordance with approved plans. <br />This means that the Division must have access road designs to review and approve during <br />the mine permit application stage, so the certification report (the certified "as-built") can <br />state that the access road was designed and constructed as approved by the Division. <br />Figure 2.05.3-8 depicts a 10% side slope but fails to indicate for what type of road. <br />Should the Division assume this applies to all roads or to a specific type of road? Please <br />clarify and/or correct. (ICAG) <br />A plan view of the access road superimposed on the existing topography (Maps 2.05.3-1 <br />and 2.05.3-3) is sufficient to determine the proposed width of the Lorencito Canyon <br />access road, but is insufficient for determining the proposed gradient. Please provide <br />designs for the access road that have the proposed road gradients indicated on them. <br />