Laserfiche WebLink
• two cuttings per yeaz. This response is acceptable. The Division noted a typographical <br />error on this page, "today" was written as "toady" in the last sentence. <br />Rule 2.04.4 Cultural and Historic Resource Information <br />31. The report was indeed received by both the Division and State Historic Preservation <br />Officer (SHPO). SHPO responded to the Division on Mazch 21, 1997 after review of this <br />report. It is our understanding that the applicant is proceeding with investigation of sites <br />as listed by SHPO or will outline a plan for investigation for those sites which will not <br />be affected eazly in the 5-year permit term. At this time, the response to this question <br />remains inadequate. <br />Rule 2.04.5 General Description of Geology and Hvdroloey <br />Under this section, all responses were found adequate except as listed below. <br />37. This response is inadequate. No where on the geology map is there anything close to 700 <br />feet of separation between the Ciruela and the Primero seams, even in the southern <br />portion of the permit azea. Please review the original question and correct this <br />information as necessary. <br />• 38. This response is inadequate. Geology map 2.04.6-2 still lists information on the "C" seam <br />rather than "R" and the "P" seam for the Ptimero. Please review original question and <br />correct as necessary. <br />44. This response is adequate, with the exception that there is still a line connecting L"f-28 <br />and LT-29 that should not be there. Please review and correct. <br />Two problems not previously noted on Geology map 2.04.6-2 were also discovered. The map <br />legend refers to "PUGS, dikes, and sills". Please correct. Also, LT-41 is missing a surface <br />elevation. <br />Rule 2.04.7 Hvdrolo¢v Descrtiation <br />Sl. Numerous references to bath house facilities exist in the permit text and figures. These <br />sites would appazently be point source discharge sites. Is the CDPHE awaze that modulaz <br />bath house facilities and treatment plants may be established at the site. If so, would they <br />require outfalls at these locations under an individual discharge permit? Has this <br />discharge been incorporated into the pond design at the various sites? The Division <br />would like to resolve any uncertainty of the existence of bath house discharge prior to <br />permit approval. <br />53. The Division poorly worded this question with regazd to the issue identified. We agree <br />• that the gradient stated in the text and shown on the map is to the northeast. However, <br />when the gradient for the underburden is calculated from the map, a different value, in <br />ft/fr, results than the value that is stated in the text. Please review and correct if necessary. <br />