My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV05123
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV05123
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:03:30 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:23:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/29/1996
Doc Name
MEMO MINE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE TCC FOIDEL CREEK MINE
From
OSM
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
PR3
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.
/
6
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
Sh7~l' BY~ ~29-96 3=34P[d WSC~ 303 832 8106;# 4/ 6 <br />`1~~~ i5 Ko~ <br />-~Y-~ D • Ste sd..e ~o~u ~j~ ~ <br />acceptable. However, in PR-3, TCC states that "[n)o subsidence <br />is expected under Foidel Creek" (see pg 2.05-133). Based on this <br />statement, there is no discussion in the subsidence control plan <br />for mitigation of impacts to either creek. <br />OSM is concerned with the inconsistent statements concerning the <br />potential for subsidence along 4 miles of Foidel and Middle <br />Creeks. In addition, OSM is concerned with the inconsistency <br />presented by TCC's projected impacts to the road and projected no <br />impacts to the stream (Foidel Creek) adjacent to the road. <br />6~k wl.,,~ ~'~-~,-~ .-f~..~y P.~~ L~- .....~L~s. -rl.~..-e ~s -t~,c~ d ~5~ss~),.~ wl,~ ~ sry. ,>~u~ s <br />a.,..e ,o~eoz ~ <br />Please clarify why TCC committed in the subsidence control plan <br />to daily monitoring of the road and to temporary and permanent <br />repair measures when there appears r_o be no similar concern or <br />requirements for monitoring of immpacts tolthe adjacent stream. <br />Se ~ ~~ i 5 -{~w,.el ~ 1•,) -fie Jib ~R.. W~u T w Pyre -k¢ ~~,-.7.x ~s ~o Cy( ~~~ u s <br />-~- u s ~2.e oS m k~+ews <br />Furthermore, Exhibit 7i in PR-3 sets forth criteria for y,~ ~vY ~~ <br />(N" S (3 <br />acceptable headcutting and incision. However, OSM did not find a^"A y <br />Colorado's rationale for accepting the criteria proposed by TCC <br />~' in Colorado's proposed findings of compliance document. OSM <br />believes the criteria for acceptable headcutting and incision ~ 1 <br />y~q v <br />should be based on the amount of headcutting and incision that <br />w~~ ~ ~k <br />the streams (and associated AVF's) can accommodate without 7 <br />altering the hydrologic balance. It appears that TCC's amount of <br />predicted headcutting and incision form L)ie basis for the <br />acceptable criteria for headcutting and incision under which no <br />stream mitigation would be required. Please clarify your <br />'~V Vic ~'. I oca ~ r~e~ ~' eon -~>~ ~ k~ ~~ ~ ~ -. ~ s ~~ c r~: <br />rr~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ <br />~-~r . S~ y h ~ i-~2~,,,• 1~.. ~ Kati ~' ~, /~t r'~) , -~ ~ S i~-, Q CSC f <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.