Laserfiche WebLink
C1981019 MR108 Adequacy 2 June 6, 2011 <br />2. MR-108 proposes changes to the approved post mining topography in the lower section of the <br />Prospect drainage. Division notes (D. Hernandez) from the April 5, 2011 meeting at Colowyo <br />discussing this matter read: <br />"Regarding another matter, the company informed us that the actual on-the-ground topography of a <br />portion of its 2009 reclamation just southeast of the East Pit's 2010 reclamation polygon does not <br />match the company's approved post-mining topography map. According to the company, this mis- <br />match was part of the reason for their most recent NOV. The company said that the recently- <br />approved revision to the company's post-mining topography (TR-87) did not pick-up this <br />discrepancy. " <br />I` he Prospect drainage was not the subject of NO V CV-2010-004. Erosional problems have been a <br />long-standing issue in the lower reach of the Prospect drainage. Please explain why the on-the- <br />ground topography deviates from the approved topography in the lower portion of the Prospect <br />drainage. <br />3. The applicant provided an as-built certification prior to the abatement deadline of November 19, <br />2010 as one of the required steps to abate CV-2010-004. Please find this as-built certification <br />attached. The as-built is signed by Tom Peterson, a registered engineer in the State of Colorado and <br />dated 11/9/2010. The as-built certification applies to the lower reaches of the Final East Pit Ditch <br />and the North Tributary of the East Pit Ditch where ditches were reconstructed in accordance with <br />the approved design. Contour lines depicting the actual topography are shown in yellow on Figure <br />of this as-built. Please explain why the contour lines on Figure 1 of this as-built differ significantly <br />from what is being proposed on Map 19, Post Mining Topography under MR-108. <br />4. The tie in boundary on Map 29 Spoil Grading does not match the tie in boundary on Map 19 Post <br />Mining topography in the 2011 block above the East Pit highwall. Given the approved post mining <br />topography as presented in the revision, it is not clear what the applicant's intentions are for this <br />area. How much, if any, of the area in question will be disturbed with regarding activities scheduled <br />for 2011? What is the current location of the undisturbed boundary in this area? <br />5. The applicant continues to fails to show the acres backfilled and graded in the previous year on maps <br />submitted with the Annual Reclamation Report as required by Rule 2.04.13(1)(c). The Division has``-, <br />pointed out this deficiency numerous times in the recent past. This information is required by Rule <br />2.04.13 stated below: <br />2.04.13 Annual Reclamation Report. <br />(1) By February 15, or other such date as agreed on, each permittee shall file an annual <br />reel ra±lon report covering the prcvlous calendar year for all areas ulidei build. <br />The report shall include, but not be limited to, text, discussion and maps which <br />address: