Laserfiche WebLink
f <br />(native materials that are unconsolidated vs cemented, steep vs gentle, backfilled or not, of varying texture, etc.) please <br />provide a plan for achieving stability on specified areas, by which this office may judge the adequacy of the plan. If <br />such practice is deemed to need revision in the future, a technical revision may be filed. <br />Mining, Maps. The maps should not include areas where there is no right-of-entry. Please revise. <br />Map C-5 does not clearly depict how activity can occur in the area NW of the pipeline, as there is no roadway shown <br />crossing the easement. Please clarify. <br />Reclamation Maps. Map F-2 and others should not include areas where there is no right-of-entry. Please revise. <br />Several small areas are labeled as reclaimed, in reclamation, or scheduled for reclamation, though all of this may not <br />be entirely accurate. So far as is known, there are no reclaimed areas in the permitted area, though some have been <br />partially reclaimed to various degrees and with varying success. This does not need to be revised on the maps, but all <br />areas will ultimately need to meet the reclamation plan. (For example, currently eroding slopes and thin vegetation in <br />Area A will need to be improved. Please be reminded that the degree of success in that area may be used as a <br />benchmark for whether other reclamation specifications could be successful or should be approved.) <br />On Map F-4 areas A, B, D, E and F are not fully delineated and as such their acreages are not clear. Please clarify. <br />On Map F-5 and F-6 the topography is too small to read. Please make it legible. <br />The cross sections on Map F-7 are appreciated. However, the notation concerning "target slope" is vague, and should <br />be replaced with a clear commitment to a specific gradient. This detail should also appear in the Reclamation Plan. <br />General Note Regarding Maps. The judicious use of color is appreciated, but depicting too many items or including <br />too many symbols makes room for improvement. Examples are the "extra" north arrow and scale in the center of the <br />map when they are already in the title block below, and the size of font used in the map scale(s) and topographic <br />contours being too small to be legible. It would be permissible to format the maps to fit on larger sheets. <br />If responses to the outstanding adequacy items are not received by the close of business on the decision date, the <br />application may be denied. If additional time is needed to prepare and submit the adequacy responses, you may submit <br />a written request for another extension. Please specify the length of time being requested. <br />As always, please ensure that you file a copy of the adequacy responses with the county clerk and obtain a receipt <br />therefor. The receipt must be received at the Division's office, along with two complete (hard copy) sets of all <br />adequacy responses. These may be submitted directly to me at the Division's Durango field office: 691 CR 233, <br />Room A-2, Durango, CO 81301; telephone 970-247-5193 and FAX 970-247-5104. <br />Sincerely, <br />Bob Oswald <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Cc: Helen Mary Johnson, BLM Durango <br />Ec: Steve Shuey, DRMS Grand Junction <br />(c:\10-04 docs\montoya am-4 GT-ROE adeq/rco)