|
4. During the June 29 meeting we clearly and repeatedly requested that this iteration of the permit documents be
<br />a "clean copy" with no tracking of edits shown. However, it is Wildcat's prerogative whether to submit a clean
<br />copy or a copy showing the tracking of edits.
<br />5. As clarified during the June 29 meeting, the review period can be extended by written request from Wildcat.
<br />Subsequent to receipt of Wildcat's written request for extension of the review period, DRMS will determine the
<br />new staff recommendation deadline, Pre - hearing Conference and MLRB hearing based on requirements of the
<br />Act and Rules.
<br />6. During the June 29 meeting, DRMS did not commit to any "resolution letter". DRMS and /or Wildcat made no
<br />commitments during the June 29 meeting for which a "resolution letter" would be warranted. Wildcat must
<br />revise the application to address DRMS adequacy issues, and the issues discussed during the June 29 meeting.
<br />7. During the June 29 meeting, the number of ground water monitoring wells and the approximate locations and
<br />depths of the monitoring wells was discussed. Wildcat must revise the application to reflect the issues discussed
<br />and address the adequacy issues previously raised by DRMS.
<br />8. Wildcat must revise the application to propose testing protocols.
<br />9. Wildcat must revise the application to propose pre- construction geotechnical field work plans. DRMS has
<br />previously clarified when such work may be initiated, see DRMS adequacy issue 14 of the Preliminary Adequacy
<br />Issues, dated March 15, 2011, and the Third Adequacy Letter, dated May 3, 2011.
<br />10. Wildcat must choose to either revise the application to remove any /all.references to exploration drilling and
<br />associated exploration access roads, or leave them in the application and address the associated adequacy
<br />issues, as discussed during the June 29 meeting. See DRMS adequacy issues 14(b), 20, 24, and 25 of the
<br />Preliminary Adequacy Issues, dated March 15, 2011; and DRMS adequacy issues 14(b), 24, and 25 of the Third
<br />Adequacy Letter, dated May 3, 2011.
<br />Response to issues raised by R Squared in the email sent July 6, 2011 at 6:48 a.m., "Subject: Wildcat Mining Corporation -
<br />Map Sizes and Scale and additional map requirements."
<br />11. Nothing in the Act or Rules requires a 200 foot "buffer" for the permit boundary or the boundary of affected
<br />lands. References in the Act and Rules to 200 feet beyond such boundaries occur under Rules 6.4.3(b) and (c),
<br />6.4.20 and §34- 32- 115(4)(d) C.R.S. Pursuant to Rules 6.4.3(b) and (c), on at least one of the Pre - mining and /or
<br />Mining Plan Maps, the application must identify the name and location of all creeks, roads, building, oil and gas
<br />wells and lines, and power and communication lines on the area of affected land and within 200 feet of all
<br />boundaries of such areas; and must show the owner's name, type of structures, and location of all significant,
<br />valuable, and permanent man -made structures contained on the area of affected land and within 200 feet of the
<br />affected land. During the June 29 meeting, a question was raised regarding how far the maps must extend
<br />beyond the boundary of affected lands. Pursuant to the above referenced Rules, DRMS responded 200 feet.
<br />However, not all maps of the application are required to extend 200 feet beyond the boundary of affected lands;
<br />only the one or more maps necessary to show the information required under Rules 6.4.3(b) and (c).
<br />Additionally, one or more maps of the application must extend two miles beyond the boundaries of affected
<br />lands to show the information required under Rules 6.4.21(8), (9), and (11). See DRMS adequacy issues 3, 5, 31,
<br />35, and 36 of the Preliminary Adequacy Issues, dated March 15, 2011; and DRMS adequacy issues 3, 10, 31, 35,
<br />and 36 of the Third Adequacy Letter, dated May 3, 2011.
<br />12. Nothing in the Act or Rules specifies the contour intervals for topographic maps, see Rules 6.4.3(c) and 6.4.6,
<br />and §34- 32- 112(4)(g) and §34- 32- 112(3)(a) C.R.S. The contour interval must be sufficient to detail the direction
<br />and rate of slope for the pre -mine topography, the topography altered by the proposed mining activity, and the
<br />final topography of the reclaimed lands. See DRMS adequacy issue 9 of the Preliminary Adequacy Issues, dated
<br />March 15, 2011; and DRMS adequacy issues 6, 8, and 10 of the Third Adequacy Letter, dated May 3, 2011.
<br />13. Pursuant to Rule 6.4.21(2), the Environmental Protection Plan shall identify on map(s), sketch(es), plan(s), or
<br />other equivalent representations, the locations where designated chemicals, toxic or acid - forming materials,
<br />which will be used, stored, handled, exposed, disturbed or disposed of within the permit area, and existing or
<br />potential sources of acid mine drainage. The locations shall be shown in accurate relationship to topography
<br />and other project facilities within the permit area. Pursuant to Rule 6.2.1(2) and §34 -32- 112(4) C.R.S., all maps
<br />of the application, with the exception of the index map, must show the name of the Applicant; must be
<br />2
<br />
|