My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-07-11_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2010088
>
2011-07-11_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:35:29 PM
Creation date
7/11/2011 10:38:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2010088
IBM Index Class Name
APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE
Doc Date
7/11/2011
Doc Name
Adequacy Response #1
From
J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc
To
DRMS
Email Name
MPB
SB1
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.
/
43
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
Mike Boulay <br />111. Based on 2.06.8(3)(b)(vi), an analysis of a series of aerial photographs, including <br />color infrared imagery flown at a time of year to show any late summer or fall <br />differences between upland and valley floor vegetative growth and of a scale <br />adequate for reconnaissance identification of areas that may be alluvial valley <br />floors need to be submitted. ERO's report states they used an aerial photo from <br />1937 and a review of current aerial photos. Please describe the results of the <br />aerial photos as they relate to AVF determinations. <br />CAM Response: CAM did not provide a specific response. <br />Division Response: ERO's report (page 3) states they used aerial photos of Mesa <br />County from 1937 to confirm NRCS's conclusion that the area was not cultivated <br />prior to the refinery. Please include a copy of these photographs in the report <br />as evidence to further describe the land use prior to the establishment of the <br />refinery. <br />CAM - Please see amended page 3 and a new Exhibit E that shows the 1937 photo <br />found in Exhibit 14. <br />112. Response accepted. <br />Rule 2.10 Maps and Plans <br />113. Division Response: Response accepted. <br />114. The typical section for Haul Road #1 shown on Map 15 does not portray the <br />proposed surfacing materials and thicknesses as does the Haul Road #2 section. <br />Please revise the graphic to include materials and thicknesses proposed to <br />surface Haul Road #1. <br />CAM Response: Please see revised Map -15 <br />-38- July 8, 2011 <br />Division Response: Map 15 was revised to show Haul Road #1 being <br />constructed of Pit Run gravel topped by 6" of 1 -1/2" Road Base. The Pit Run is <br />shown as variable. Certain additional details were incorporated with the <br />Apr -2011 response, but a number of questions remain regarding design <br />and construction of the haul roads. These questions are itemized under <br />section 2.05.3(3) in this adequacy review. <br />CAM: Comment noted and answered as requested under section 2.05.3(3). <br />115. Division Response: Response accepted. <br />116. Map 21 illustrates the profile of the proposed rail spur and loop. The location of <br />the proposed bridge spanning Reed Wash is not shown. Please add this feature <br />to the rail spur profile. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.