PERMFILE118867 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (c )): The Exhibi[ Summary received 1027/99 indicates [he entire area will be re- vegetated by a re-seeding plan supplied by the Costilla County Soil Conservation District. There is no such plan ~~ included among the materials supplied with the application. [f the Costilla County SCD plan is to be followed, it must be supplied for Division review and approval. Until that plan is received, the Division's review must be based on the materials so far provided. • EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (c)): The Exhibit D originally provided does not respond to the requirements of this Rule. The Exhibit Summary provided 1027/99 addresses the requirements of this Rule in part, i.e. a seed mix ~ is provided, an application method specified and a commitment made to strip 6-8 inches of top soil. The other ~}; requirements of this Exhibit have not been addressed. M" The operator should respond to the requirements of Rules 6.3.4 (c) (ii) , (v) and (vi) in the revised Exhibit D as well. ' EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (e)): The Exhibit D originally supplied says rock and dirt will be put back in the pit. The source and nature of this material are not specified. The Exhibit Summary supplied 1027/99 does not address the requrements of this Rule. (}(~ The operator should indicate in the revised Exhibit D if there is any waste rack dump involved in the operation and where in the permit area that is to be located. The Exhibit E-Mine Plan Map should be revised to show the location of any waste rock dump. EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (f)): The Division is aware that a $5,000.00 Financial Warranty has already been supplied as requred by the Mined Land Reclamation Board az a Corrective Action for Notice of Violation MV-99- 022. That Financial Warranty, however, waz interim in nature and may not be sutlicient to reclaim the disturbance created by the mining operation subsequently proposed. Once the Division receives the operator's response to this letter and is in a position to better understand what the operator is proposing, an estimate of the required Financial Warranty by the Division will be possible. In the meantime, the operator should consider more fully and be more specific in regard to the factors that bear directly on the cost of reclamation, factors that are mentioned under this rule, e.g. will there be vertical high walls that must be back filled or will mining be conducted down to the proposed l:5 or gentler slopes, how much grading will 6e required, how will the seedbed be prepared prior to seeding, will mulch and/or fertilizer be employed in the reclamation, etc. EXHIBIT E (Rule 6.3.5 (2)): The map labeled Mine Plan Map and supplied by Fax on 10/28/99 technically does not meet the requirements of this Rule. If there was not a significant imperfection in the map, however, the Division would have been able to Fmd the responses required by this Rule included among the other materials and maps provided. Comparing the contouring presented on the Exhibit A Map with that on the Exhibit ~A~ E-Mine Plan Map, the extension of the 8690 contour beyond the southern permit area boundary on the Mine Plan r~ Map suggests that mining is being proposed outside the permit azea. That is unacceptable. If such occurred, this would require that the Division take an enforcement action so the Division can hardly approve such a Mine Plan Map az part of a permit application. The operator should supply a revised Mine Plan Map that at least includes appropriately revised contouring of the pit. EXHIBIT E (Rule 6.3.5 (3)): The map labeled Reclamation Plan Map technically does not meet the requirements of this Rule. Since, however, the required information was included among the other materials and ~o1(r maps provided, the Reclamation Plan Map would have been accepted but, unfortunately, it contains the same imperfection az the Mine Plan Map. The extension of the 8690 contour beyond the southern permit boundary suggests that mining and reclamation is proposed outside the permit area. The Division cannot accept such a map. The operator should supply a revised Reclamation Plan Map that at least includes appropriately revised contouring of the pit. EXHIBIT G (Rule 6.3.7)): The copy of the Grant Deed provided to demonstrate ownership of the § proposed permit area by the applicant does not appear to do so. Comparison of the Exhibit A that accompanies the -~+` `r~ Grant Deed and describes in detail what property is covered by the deed with the detailed description of the permit Ir 9WI,'~~ area included on the Exhibit A Map (of the permit application) indicates that Lot 36 is not covered by the deed. ~1.4R ~~