My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-10-27_PERMIT FILE - M2020035 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2020035
>
2020-10-27_PERMIT FILE - M2020035 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2025 4:17:34 AM
Creation date
10/27/2020 10:00:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2020035
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
10/27/2020
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Greg Lewicki & Associates, PLLLC
To
DRMS
Email Name
ACY
THM
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.
/
51
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
Exhibit O <br /> 38. Label/clarify which parcels are owned(surface and subsurface) by eachparty. <br /> Surface and subsurface ownership are the same for all of the affected area. Map C-1 shows the <br /> ownership of all parcels in the affected area. <br /> Exhibit S <br /> 39. 11 structure owners are listed on page S-1 but only 7 certified mail receipts for <br /> agreements sent out are included. Provide proof that agreements were sent to; City of <br /> Grand Junction, Grand Valley Drainage District, Union Pacific and Elam <br /> Construction. <br /> Certified mail receipts for the City of Grand Junction, Grand Valley Drainage District, Union <br /> Pacific, and Elam Construction are attached. <br /> 40. Map C-I shows a trail owned by City of Grand Junction but this structure is not listed <br /> on table S-1 for structures by that owner. <br /> See the revised Table S-1. <br /> 41. Map C-1 depicts a fence around a portion of Innovative Marketing Systems Inc. <br /> property. Update maps and lists accordingly <br /> Map C-1 and Table S-1 have been revised. <br /> 42. The general location descriptions of Table S-1 appear to be in reference to Area I only. <br /> Several utility features run down both 23 %Road and 23 '1 Road. <br /> Table S-1 has been revised to reflect the locations of structures vis-a-vis both Areas. The Bureau <br /> of Land Management is no longer listed as the trail on their property south of the affected area is <br /> actually owned by the City of Grand Junction. <br /> GeoTech <br /> 43. Factor of Safety(FOS) applies to active slopes while mining as well as final reclaimed <br /> slopes. Slopes once knocked down to a 3H.• I V are acceptable however mining will <br /> occur with near vertical slopes. What is the required setback to maintain an acceptable <br /> FOS while mining with vertical slopes? <br /> The vertical mining slope must be at the mid point of the final slope at the extent of mining. At <br /> the locations where mining is the shallowest, and thus the final slope is the shortest, the vertical <br /> mining slope crest must be at least 30 feet interior to the final slope crest. <br /> 44. Table GS-1 appears to be more targeted towards the permanent (final reclaimed) <br /> slopes of Area 1. What about during rapid draw down of Area 2 and the northern <br /> slopes during active mining? <br /> The conditions at Area 1 for all scenarios are equally applicable to Area 2. Area 2 is a shallower <br /> pit, overall, and will experience less impact of rapid draw down since groundwater is expected to <br /> 23 114 West Pit 8 <br /> October 2020 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.