Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />1. The operator did not include a reclamation cost estimate with the application: Rule 2.05.4(2)(b). A <br />reclamation cost estimate will still need to be submitted by the applicant. <br />2. I have a concern with the placement of the topsoil pile, "N" on Map King II-007. The topsoil <br />stockpile is shown placed at the mouth of the canyon adjacent to the main access road, truck scales, <br />and sediment pond. Please have the operator provide an explanation of how the topsoil pile will be <br />protected from contamination and erosion in accordance with Rule 4.06.3(2). <br />3. There aze apparent inconsistent statements between Section 2.05.4 page 1 and Section 2.04.5 page <br />11. The table on page 1, Section 2.05.4, states that revegetation monitoring will be conducted <br />annually. Section 2.05.4, page 11 indicates that vegetation will be monitored biennially. Please <br />bring these two pages into agreement with one another. <br />4. Please provide a discussion of vegetation sampling methods that will be employed for reclamation <br />success demonstration as required by Rule 4.15.11. Please refer to new rules promulgated <br />9/ 14/2005. <br />The baseline data measured pre-mining woody stem density at 2977 stems per acre. The operator is <br />proposing a reclamation success standard of 500 stems per acre. The disturbance area is only proposed to <br />encompass approximately 20 acres, the vegetation on the adjacent undisturbed hill slopes are dominated by <br />shrublands (King II-006 map). NKC proposes to plant shrubs in patches in lieu of an even distribution <br />throughout the reclaimed area. This practice is acceptable and desirable. <br />5. Please clazify if the proposed woody plant standard would be applied to the specific shrub patches <br />or if the shrub patch azeas aze to be included in the overall disturbance area and the 500 stems per <br />acre applicable to the entire reclaimed azea. <br />6. Please provide proof of consultation and approval of this woody stem density success standard by <br />the Colorado Division Wildlife as required by Rule 4.15.8(7) (promulgated 9/15/2005). <br />7. Map King II-005, Mine Plan Map, dated 10/07/2005, shows the affected area bisecting the Hay <br />Gulch cemetery. This map also shows the underground workings of the third left panel coming <br />within 125 feet measured horizontally of the Hay Gulch cemetery boundary. Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iii) <br />requires that the affected area not be within 100 feet measured horizontally of a cemetery. Map <br />King II-007, Operations Plan Map, dated 10/7/2005, shows the underground workings of this third <br />left panel only extending to within 350 feet north of the Hay Gulch cemetery. Please bring these <br />two maps into agreement and assure that the requirements of Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iii) are met. <br />8. NKC provided a map King II-006, Soils, Vegetation and Land-Use, dated 10/07/2005, in <br />accordance with Rules 2.04.3(2)(a), 2.04.10(1), 2.04.9(1)(c), and 2.05.5(1)(c). However, it is <br />unclear on this map where the boundazies of the specific land use designations are. Please have the <br />operator provide clarification between the land use azeas on the map or provide detail of the land <br />use boundaries in the map legend. <br />9. Maps King II-005 and King II-007 both depict the Hay Gulch Imgation Ditch running adjacent to <br />County Road 120. (Rule 2.05.6(6)(ii)(B) existing structures) Both maps show this ditch ending <br />abruptly just east of the canyon mouth where the proposed King II Mine facilities are to be located. <br />Does the ditch end abruptly like this on the ground or does it route into another structure. Is this <br />irrigation ditch still actively used? <br />