My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE53499
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE53499
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:56:55 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 3:47:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000053
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/10/2000
Doc Name
CASTILLO PIT FN M-2000-053 RESULTS OF DIV ADEQUACY REVIEW OF PERMIT APPLICATION
From
DMG
To
LAS ANIMAS CNTY
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.
/
3
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 />EXHIBIT B (Rule 6.3.2 (2)): The Division is aware that the County has stated that there are no permanem <br />man-made structures within 200 fezt of the area to be affected by the proposed operation. Fences, however, are <br />often overlookzd in such assessments: although they are considered to be such structures. Moreover, there <br />apparently are different land owners to the south and east of the Castillo property. <br />Please confirm that there are no existing fences along the boundaries of the Castillo property to the south <br />and east. if there are such fences. please provide a revised Exhibit E Map with any fences indicated and thz <br />owner(s) identified. <br />EXHIBIT C (Rule 6.3.3 (b)): The County has stated that approximately 6 inchzs of ropsoil suitable for <br />plant growth is available but has not clearly committed, in the Exhibit narrative, to salvage that much for <br />reclamation purposes. <br />Please confirm the Counry's ~mtention to salvage 6 ~mches of topsoil for reclamation use. <br />EXHIBIT C (Rule 6.3.3 (k)): The County has indicated that no refuse oracid-forming or toxic materials <br />will be involved. Hopefully, this will prove to be true, however, the response required is how such will be handled <br />and disposed of if exposed. <br />Please satisfy the requirements of the Rule. <br />EXHIBIT E-MAPS (Rule 6.3.5 (2) (a)): The map labeled as the Exhibit E Mining Plan Map contains a <br />survey of the Castillo propeny which includes the bulk of the proposed permit area. On this map, there is a sketch <br />of the outline of the proposed pit. This sketch is not accurate as evidenced by maps of the permit area included in <br />Exhibit A and as the Exhibit E Reclamation Plan Ivtap. As a result, it is not made clear that the proposed permit area <br />extends beyond the surveyed area to the north and also lies within 200 feet of surface property, to the east and <br />south, owned by other than the Castillos. <br />Please provide a revised Exhibit E Mining Plan Map with the proposed permit area properly locatzd and <br />labeled. (The Division has included a copy of its attempt to approximate the position of the permit area on the map <br />as a guide [o what is zxpected in the requested cortected version.) <br />EXHIBIT E-MAPS (Rule 6.35 ('_) (z)): In the event that there are significant. valuable, and permanent <br />man-made structures, such as fences, within 200 feet of the proposed permit affected area, they are not represented <br />on the Mining Plan Map at this time. <br />If there actually are significant, valuable, and permanent man-made structures within 200 fzet of the <br />proposed permit/affected area, these should be indicated on the revised Mining Plan Map. <br />EXHIBIT E-MAPS (Rule 6.3.5 (3) (ap: The Reclamation Plan Map indicates that there will be 4:1 slopes <br />for the reclaimed west margins of the pit but nothing is specified for [he north, south and east margins. As a result, <br />the post mine topography is uncertain. <br />Please provide a revised Reclamation Plan Map that shows the gradient of all reclaimed slopes For the pit <br />sufficient to describe the post mine topography. <br />EXHIBIT H (Rule 6.3.8) The County has staled that there is no municipality within 2 miles of the <br />proposed mining operation. The community of Valdez is within that distance. <br />Please indicate if the community of Valdez is incorporated or not. IF it is, please.provide a revised Exhibit <br />H that indicates i[s proximity to the proposed mining operation. <br />EXHIBIT L (Rule 6.3.12): The County has stated that there are no man-made structures within 200 feet of <br />the land to be affected by the proposed operation. The Division has requested contirrtiation of this in its discussions <br />of Exhibit A and Exhibit E Maps. <br />1(there are structures. z. g. propeny line fences. within 200 feet of the land to be affected by the proposed <br />operation, the County should supply a revised Exhibit L that indicates this. The revised exhibit should also includz <br />zithzr a notarized agreement with the owner of the structure to provide compensation for any damage brought about <br />by the mining operation or an appropriate zngineering evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not be <br />damaged by activinzs occurting at the mining operation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.