My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12439
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12439
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:52 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:30:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980003
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
6/12/1981
Doc Name
ADEQUACY OF H-G RESPONSES TO PAR
From
MLR
To
BRIAN MUNSON
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.
/
2
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
<br />~~ <br />STATE OF COLORADO RiC HARD D.-IAMM. ,ovenni <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />D. Monte Pascoe, Executive Director <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION <br />423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 839-3567 <br />III I II IIII III <br />David C. Shelton <br />June lz, 19s1 Director <br />TO: Brian Munson <br />FROM: Susan Mowry ~~+ <br />RE: Adequacy of H-G Responses to PAR <br />1. Not certified: <br />S Land Use Map <br />2. Response to 2.05.6(3)(b)2. needs to be given to Roy for his approval. <br />3. Is 11 acre feet an acceptable figure for per year net reduction in surface <br />water yield? If yes, no further action needed. If no, then additional comment <br />to H-G. <br />4. Check out the response to 2.05.5(I)(c) to determine if it is acceptable <br />pending map submittal. <br />5. Check out 2.05.4(2)(c)4. <br />6. Check out 2.05.4(2)(c)2. <br />7. A more detailed timetable for reclamation has not been submitted. A <br />map showing the reclamation sequence through 1985 has been submitted. The map <br />is Exhibit W, the comment in the letter is 2.05.4(2)(a). <br />8. Where is the geotechnical analysis that is referenced in 2.05.3(6)(c)? <br />9. Are 20 foot lifts acceptable for overburden dumps? If yes, no action <br />required. If no, then additional comment necessary. <br />10. The response to 2.05.3(4)(a)(ii)(R) seems totally off the wall to me. <br />See what you think. <br />lI. H-G is requesting a small area exemption in response to comment <br />2.05.3(4). <br />12. You wi1J need to look at all the responses to comments on sediment design <br />z. os.3(y), <br />I3. There is no response to cormr~nt 2.05.3(3)(b) concerning roads. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.