My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-01-24_PERMIT FILE - M2012045
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2012045
>
2013-01-24_PERMIT FILE - M2012045
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2017 9:31:19 AM
Creation date
1/25/2013 12:45:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2012045
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
1/24/2013
Doc Name
Preliminary Adequacy Review Reponse
From
LJ Development, Inc.
To
DRMS
Email Name
TC1
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.
/
23
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
application or technical revision, to be determined through consultation with the <br />Division, prior to constructing the visual berms. <br />Response: In order to clarify the status this permit application the operator does not <br />intend to modify this dry pit operation to a Developed Water Resource post mining <br />use . If in the future the demand for water storage become feasible the operator will <br />submit an amendment as per the DRMS Rules to change the use. Therefore the <br />applicant considers the discussion of the Excelsior Ditch relocation to be premature. <br />22. Similar to Comment 2 above, the Exhibit F map implies Nyberg Road is <br />intended to be included in the permit boundary. Please clarify the Applicant's intent to <br />include or exclude Nyberg Road in the permit boundary on the map. <br />Response : <br />Nyberg road is a Pueblo County Road and is not intended to be included in <br />the permit boundary. The Pre - Mining Map has been revised to show that <br />Nyberg Road is excluded and not part of the permitted area. <br />6.4.7 EXHIBIT G — Water Information <br />23. Section (1) Impact to groundwater — the second sentence indicates there is <br />expected to be some degree of impact on the groundwater flow regime. Please provide <br />some discussion on the impact the operation is expected to have on local well users <br />(within 600 feet) access to and quantity of groundwater. <br />Response: <br />The information stated above is not relevant this application since this is a dry <br />pit application. The operator understands that if a Developed Water Resource post mining <br />land use that the above statement would come up if an amendment was submitted for a <br />Developed Water Resource post mining land use. Therefore, please ignore the statement <br />above for this permit application. <br />24. There appears to be some discrepancy between text and Exhibit C — Mining <br />Plan Map and Phase One. The Exhibit C map indicates Phase One is the 9.7 -acre <br />disturbance on the west end of the proposed operation. Section (1) indicates the "Central <br />Reservoir" is Phase one. None of the provided maps indicate where the Central <br />Reservoir is to be located. Please clarify and/or correct all references to Phase One, <br />Phase Two, etc. on all maps and text references. <br />Response: In order to clarify this applicants intention expressed in this application we <br />shall submit the following revised Exhibit G DRMS Rule 6.4.7: <br />6.4.7 Water Information: <br />(1) If the operation is not expected to directly affect surface or <br />groundwater systems, a statement of that expectation shall be submitted. <br />EXHIBIT "G" <br />REVISED JANUARY 15, 2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.