My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC23960
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC23960
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:23:45 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:52:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977285
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
10/10/2002
Doc Name
response to inspection
From
dmg
To
terry
Inspection Date
12/18/2001
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.
/
4
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
There are several other vent holes, plus their associated access roads and overhead electric structures, grouped in <br />the approximate location of NAD coordinates 527900N and 1047800 E. The main comments I have about this <br />group is that none of the vent holes are delineated as "disturbed area," though I think they should be. And the <br />access road to the sites is depicted along a totally different alignment. On the old maps it roughly follows the gulch <br />where the overhead powerlines extend up from the Sunday portal area. That road alignment was observed by me <br />while onsite. If these discrepancies are not an oversights, please explain why these items are not regarded as <br />disturbance. <br />Regarding the affected roads to the individual vent holes and other remote features of the permit, if the features <br />existed in the area simply because they were pre-law roads which are still there, it is still appropriate to show them <br />on the map. If they were used in the permitted operation, whether they were pre-law roads or constructed under <br />this permit, they must be included in the affected acreage. As such, if they have not been reclaimed, and the roads <br />will not be used in the future, they should be reclaimed. If the roads, through years of non-use, have also become <br />reclaimed (i.e., impassable but stable) they should be assessed to verify if there is any further reclamation necessary <br />on them. However, please be reminded that until the removal or reclamation of certain features has been <br />documented, the roads, etc., remain as reclamation liabilities and within the 40-acre limitation of the permit. All <br />roads should be shown, but different symbols should be used to differentiate the pre-law, permitted but <br />unreclaimed, and the permitted and now reclaimed roads. <br />The old maps (and your USGS map base) depicts the radio tower formerly located on the ridge top above the <br />Sunday Mine portal area. The structure has been fiilly removed, but a rough trail road still exists up to it. The <br />tower site can be deemed reclaimed, but the road is unstable and eroding, and therefore cannot be deemed <br />reclaimed. The road spur up to the tower is shown on the old maps, but not on the new one, though it should be. <br />3. Sunday Mine, Portal Area. <br />There aze two low grade stockpile areas shown on the new map, which is different from the old maps. The south <br />one matches the old maps, but the north one does not. The large stockpile of fill area on the east end is identified as <br />a low grade stockpile on the old maps, but not on the new maps. Is it low grade material or just waste rock? Is the <br />new map correct? Please clarify if the low grade material was moved. Please describe the volume of the low grade <br />materials and explain what reclamation is to be done to these materials or these areas. <br />It is assumed that all areas shown in brown with hachures denote waste rock dumps, which are to be graded to 2:1 <br />slopes or less as part of final reclamation. <br />The old maps show two portals, and the new map shows a portal and an old portal. The portal is regarded to be the <br />open and actively-used one, but it is not known to what extent the old portal may be regarded as closed. We will <br />discuss later the further details of any actual closure that may have, been performed on the old portal, but for now <br />please state whether the old portal is in any way "open." ' <br />There are azeas depicted in brown foi trash and debris above the old portal location. Details should be provided <br />later describing how much and what type of debris is. there. Also, my inspection notes reflect that there is another <br />debris area west of the shop and warehouse buildings; Please confirm whether this is the case. <br />I agree that the new surface detail superimposed on the map base must be tied back in to the topography, for both <br />the final mining and reclamation maps. Please be reminded that reclamation maps should depict only those features <br />which will remain onsite after reclamation is finished. All roads, buildings, berms, etc., that aze to be removed <br />should not be included on the reclamation maps.. Stormwater control structures which are to remain should be <br />shown. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.