Laserfiche WebLink
100-yeaz flood plain to mitigate any impacts to the hydrologic balance in the event of a 100-year <br />flood. <br />Rule 6.4.6 Exhibit F- Reclamation Plan Man <br />21. (previous question #34) The applicant stated that the proposed contours were included on the <br />Reclamation Plan Map. The Division was able to locate the changes as indicated. Please revise the <br />reclamation plan map to include contour lines of the reclaimed area of sufficient detail to portray the <br />depth and slope of the reclaimed ponds. <br />Rule 6.4.7 Exhibit G- Water Information <br />22. (previous question #35) Please further commit to the Division to providing the Division a copy of the <br />approved well permit from the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) prior to exposing groundwater on <br />site. <br />23. The Division's hydrology review comments for the Lupton Lakes Resource application aze attached. <br />Please comment accordingly. <br />Rule 6.4.12 Exhibit L- Reclamation Costs <br />24. (previous quesfion #37) Please forwazd the information associated with the reclamation cost esfimate <br />as requested by the Division in the Mazch 8, 2005 adequacy letter. <br />Rule 6.4.19 Exhibit S- Permanent Man-Made Structures <br />25. (previous question #41) Please provide legal right of entry and consent to relocate for the gas line <br />associated with the Adams property as previously requested. In addition, the Panhandle pipeline <br />easement is for the Adams Sand and Gravel Mine and TKO, LLC as the signature. This application <br />(M-2003-012) was withdrawn by the applicant and resubmitted as Lupton Lakes Resources and the <br />operator as SW TKO Joint Venture, LLC. The nonexclusive easement is under a different mine name <br />and operator. Please provide a copy of an updated easement with the current name and operator. <br />26. (previous question #44) The stability analysis dated September 27, 2004 states under the title, <br />"Existing Easements" that the following easements exist at the site; "the existing oil well on Adams <br />has a 50 foot easement along Highway 85." As previously stated in the March 8, 2005 adequacy letter, <br />the Division was unable to depict this easement on the exhibits and does not appeaz that there is a <br />buffer from this easement. Please further clarify this easement location with the Division. <br />27. Please respond to the CDOT letter dated Mazch 26, 2005 (sent by separate cover on Mazch 28, 2005) <br />regarding issues regarding US Highway 85. <br />28. According to the Division's stability analysis letter dated Mazch 23, 2004 and discussions with Mazk <br />Reiner of Civil Resources, the mining setbacks aze to be established as horizontal distances measured <br />from the toe of the mining slope to the various structures located around the proposed pit. Exhibit 3 of <br />7 was not revised to reflect the mining off set distances from the toe of the slope noted in Civil <br />Resources letter of March 22, 2005 or the Division's letter of Mazch 23, 2005. Please revise the map <br />to depict mining setback distances as agreed to in these letters and to avoid conflict and confusion with <br />the setback distances currently noted on the map. <br />29. On the Civil Resources stability letter of Mazch 22, 2005, the final noted number 5 was not included as <br />a note on the map. This note states, "The maximum allowed encroachment of the mine slope to toe of <br />WCR 6 and WCR 8, further than 1300 feet from Highway 85 is 65 feet." Please add this note to <br />Exhibit 3 of 7. <br />