My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-03-24_PERMIT FILE - M2010007 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2010007
>
2010-03-24_PERMIT FILE - M2010007 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:02:32 PM
Creation date
3/30/2010 7:50:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2010007
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
3/24/2010
Doc Name
Additional adequacy review
From
DRMS
To
Steve Baker
Email Name
GRM
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.
/
4
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
Additional Adequacy Review 110c. 3/24/2010 <br />M-2010-007 <br />Wand Pit <br />Issues that require correction or Clarification are in Bold Italics. <br />Per Rule 1.6.2 (g), submit proof of publication and proof of all required notices. <br />• Please provide original return receipts to all owners of record of surface and mineral <br />rights and surface owners within 200 feet of the permit boundaries. <br />Per Rule 6 3 Specific requirements for a 110c Reclamation Operation: <br />6.3.1- Exhibit A: The applicant has submitted mail receipts of notice to adjacent landowners. <br />These landowners however are not identified on Map A-2 per Rule 6.3.1(3). <br />6 3 2 - Exhibit B Site Description. <br />(c) Exhibit E notes the Yampa River within 15 feet of the east wall of the pit. <br />Please provide details of the 100 year flood plain as previously requested. A <br />map showing the flood plain in relation to the proposed project, photos of the <br />river/ project area and any other available information will be helpful in the <br />evaluation. The applicant needs to clearly demonstrate that there is no <br />potential for the Yampa River to capture the pit in a flooding event or provide <br />engineered controls to prevent capture. DRMS will accept a signed evaluation <br />report submitted by a certified hydrologist or engineering measures to prevent <br />capture. <br />Normal protocol is for a minimum of a fifty (50) foot buffer between <br />excavations and a rivers edge within the 100 year flood plain. You note a <br />fifteen foot buffer and state an additional 35 foot buffer for topsoil stockpiling <br />will give a 50 foot buffer. Maps do not reflect this buffer area total. <br />The Description Map or site description text should show or explain details out <br />to 200 feet or better to ensure all manmade structures are accounted for. If <br />it's surrounded by woodlands then clearly state or show it. Are there fences, <br />trails or other features? Current details are out to approximately fifty feet and <br />insufficient. <br />6 3 3 - Exhibit C, Mining Plan. <br />How is the area "Edge of Meadow" noted on Mine and Reclamation Maps pertinent <br />to the Mining and Reclamation Plans if it is outside of the permit area? The area is <br />identified in the site description map in Exhibit A and B. Staff sees no reason for its <br />inclusion with the Mining and Reclamation Maps. Clarify why this area must be <br />included on these maps or remove it as previously requested. <br />(i) Please state that no ground water shall be exposed until a well permit is issued <br />and DRMS has a copy for the file. The applicant has describe in dewatering, <br />sedimentation control and groundwater points of compliance required <br />by other permits. However, these features must be noted on Exhibit E, Mining <br />Plan Map. Please correct.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.