PERMFILE51610

• Permit No: M1997084
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 11/18/1997
• Doc Name: MEMPHIS FN M-97-084 110 APPLICATION ADEQUACY RESPONSES
• From: DMG
• To: OURAY ASSOC LLC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• iii iiiiiiiiniiiiii •
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Sl., Room 215
Denver, Colorado BO'_03
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
November 18, 1997
James Poulos
Ouray Associates LLC
4025 Easley Road
Golden CO 80403
DENVEB OFFICE
PUBLlC FILE COPY
FILE: ~- ~'} - a S 4-
SITE: µ~ rtiI s
Re: Memphis, File No. M-97-084, 110 Application Adequacy Responses.
Dear Mr. Poulos,
~~
~~1~
DEPAR7'MEIdT O:
NATURA]
RESOURCE
Roy Romer
Governor
Tames S. Lochhead
Etecmive Director
Michael B. long
Division Director
I have finished reviewing the latest responses which are part ofthe application for the above-
named site, submitted by Robert Larson. Overall the responses appear to adequately address the
issues still outstanding. I have a few comments and questions remaining, which I have listed
below, in order of the exhibit to which they pertain. Some of these items require a response from
you.
Exhibit B -Location Map
The map provided, on which the watershed boundary has been delineated, is helpful. Though.I
still feel that the watershed is larger than the rectangle drawn on the map, the issue may be moot if
the City ofOuray is to require implementation ofa complete plan for control ofrunoffand debris
flows. I will mention more about this below.
Exhibit C -Mining Plan
You have stated that it will be difficult and unnecessary to strip or segregate topsoil for use in
reclamation, due to its thin and rocky nature. If the success of possible revegetation of the site
can be assured, even without soil or other fine material segregated and respread, the Division will
agree that the applicant need not stockpile any such material. This will be discussed below.
The mitigation of potential rolling material leaving the site toward the south has been proposed
through use of a temporary chainlink fence. This seems to be adequate, and will also serve to
protect the existing fence, and mark the boundary well for the awareness of equipment operators.
Be reminded that use of a fence during mining for containing material requires that it be
maintained and functional, and that its removal at the conclusion of mining must be bonded. The
Division's estimate of such cost is $2.00/foot fora 150-foot fence, for a total of $300.00 in direct
cost. This will be included in the cost estimate below.
Exhibit D -Reclamation Plan
The statement I made about 3:1 maximum slopes on all disturbed areas was made at the end of a