REV13340 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Mike Boulay Department ofMinem/r and Geology Page 2 description ofBRB-4 and 5 be e~rpandec~ to clarify that these blocks would be subject to provisions ofthe Colorado Permanent Program. Response: The text has been revised and updated. 3. We have several questions relating to the BBB delineations on Exhibit 13-13.1 a) Then it an area of barren, eroded spoils within BRB-1, which apparently war affected by acid fornring spoil material It it our understanding that the barren area will be excluded from the bond release block when the initial baud release application is submitted, and that a plan for remedial reclamation will be pursued Please confum that out understandingis correct. Response: SCC has included this azea in the Phase I Bond Release application, since backfilling and grading is complete. It has not been fully determined what version of the xclamation law applies to this azea. Therefore a plan for potential "remedial reclamation" is still to be completed. Phase I is completed. The remedial reclamation is a bier concern for Phase II evaluation. b) Numerous Tree Plot areas an delineated on the Exhibit. Our assumption is that there areas an locations when planned shrub ar the planting war conducted, and that there areas do not necessarily correspond to the ",shrub concentration areas"or synonymous `high density shrub patches'; referenced rn subsequent sections of the appendix. Please rnnfrrn or clarify as appropriate Response: Your assumption is correct, c) Directly youth of Parzrl 99-1 f, in BI~B11, then it a reclaimed parcel that includes a large Tne Plot area. The passel doer not appear to have slate/number designation. Alra, then it a parcel in BRB4, at the extreme southern end of the reclamation, that is designated 86-4e. If the parcel were reclaimed in 1986, it would logically be included in BRB- 3. Please address and correct these apparent discrepancies as appropriate. Response: An updated map is attached. 4. The Logical Land Management Units (I.I MU'r) as described in the appendix and delineated on Exhibit 13-13.2 compare individually fenced pastures. These units do not appear to correspond precisely with the Logital Land Management Units terminology as described in the 1995 DMG Guidelines document. Under `Band $eleare Block Constraints'; on page 14 of the Guidelines, a bond please black is described as agrouping of reclamation parcels that comprise or an contained within a single hgical land management unit. This does not appear to be the care with respect to the BRB'r and L.LMU'r as delineated on the map exhibiu in the appendix: For example, the B1~B-3 bond release block appears to extend into 5 separate L.IMU's, ar defaned in the appendix (Cow Camp Pasture, Pecom Parton, IY/adge Pasture, Powder House Pasture, and Thompson 440 Pasture). It may be the case that multiplepastxres could be appropriatelygrouped into a single LT11fI7, based on the factors described in Part 2 (pager 14 and 15) of the Guidelines. If so, the necessary amendment may be limited to mission of the narrative under `2eigica! Iand Management Units'; on page 2 of the appendix, to describe and just the inclusion of multiple designated pastures within a single I.LMU. If this it not the case, it may be necessary to further dtvide the proposed bond release blocks, to create additional bond release blocky such that each BItB it mntained within a single L,IMU. Please review the referenced Guideline sections and amend the appendix as necessary to demonstrate that the Band Re%ase Block/Logicalland Management Unit framework of the appendix is m acrnrdance with the Guideline.