REV10252 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

comments. The Division appreciates your correspondence dated November 23, 1994 and received by our office on December 6, 1994 which provides the Division with a current address and telephone number through which DGMC can now be contacted. Ropefully this will prevent future communication problems during the review. Regarding your question posed to the Division in correspondence dated November 25, 1994 and received by our office on December 6, 1994 regarding the reasons why the application was deemed complex, it is the Division's experience that a metal mining operation such as the Incas Mine which involves a combination of phased surface mining, underground mining, ore processing involving the use of designated chemicals, and disposal of both mill tailings and waste rock within a steeply sloping, confined area containing a combination of new disturbances and previously disturbed areas clearly constitutes a complex mining operation as defined in the regulations. Division review of such an application requires the involvement of additional professional staff needed to evaluate geotechnical and hydrologic aspects of the proposed operation, and such an operation is clearly beyond what the Office considers to be a typical application review process for the majority of 110(2) applications we receive. 110(2) applications considered typical by the Division are for the most part surface gravel mining operations on dry, level to gently sloping ground that have no hydrologic, geotechnical, or geochemical concerns and have a relatively simple, non-phased pit layout and conventional reclamation plan. RHVIHW COMMENTS The Division has completed a review of your November 22, 1994 response to the Division's November 3, 1994 preliminary adequacy review of the above referenced application. Additional comments may be forthcoming depending on the nature of your responses to the comments provided below. Geotechnical and Hydrology comments provided by Allen Sorenson and Tom Schreiner, respectively of our Denver office have been incorporated into the comments provided below. The geotechnical and hydrology comments were originally forwarded to DGMC in memo form via fax on November 28, 1994. As of this date, a response to the comments contained in either of the two additional review memos has not been received by our office. jl. ADJACBNT SURFACH OWNBRS The Division has still not received a copy of EXHIBIT A-1, INCAS MINE PROPERTY LOCATION, dated 11/13/94 and referenced in \ your 11/22/94 response. Please provide this information. v 2. RECLAMATION PLAN MAP The Division has still not received a copy of HXRIBIT H, RECLAMATION PLAN, revised 11/13/94 and referenced in your 11/22/94 response. Please provide this information. 2