My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE52341
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE52341
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:56:10 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 3:18:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981039
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Name
MLRD 2/10/92
Section_Exhibit Name
Reclamation Project Binder
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.
/
3
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 />III'll'lllllllll'll • Doc Date:12/11/2001 <br />999 aTAT~OF COLORADO <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION oF.~a~ <br />N~ /'. <br />Department of Natural Resources .~w=99$ <br />t373 Sherman St.. Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 '~~~~ , <br />303 866-3567 s ra~5 <br />FAX: 303 832-8106 <br />Ray Romer, <br />Governor <br />~' v Fretl R. Banta, <br />Dinsion Director <br />February 10, 1992 <br />Rockcast Company <br />c/o Mr. Dan Massey <br />Parcel, ro, Hulton and Spaanstra <br />1801 California Street, Suite 3600 <br />Denver, CO 80202 <br />Re: Rockcastle Reclamation Plans, Technical Submittal Adequacy Questions, <br />C-81-039 <br />Dear Mr. Massey: <br />The Division has completed its review of the Rockcastle Company adequacy <br />responses dated October, 1991 (received November 26, 1991) and the Pit 4 <br />response dated January 15, 1992. The following comments or questions need to <br />be addressed prior to approval of the final reclamation plan for the <br />Grassy Gap Mine (C-81-039). <br />• 1. From field inspection and review <br />pushing in the embankment on Pond <br />disturbance of a heavily forested <br />get an adequate amount of fill to <br />details, including proposed final <br />reclamation. <br />if aerial photos, it does not appear that <br />3 would provide adequate fill without <br />area. Where does Rockcastle propose to <br />reclaim the pond? Please provide <br />topography cross sections for the Pond 3 <br />2. The Division requests that, once all issues have been resolved, a map be <br />generated that shows all remaining features, structures, roads, drains, <br />ponds, wells, etc. which depict the completed (or proposed) reclamation <br />features. If this is to be Map R-i, please add: <br />d) Pit 1 <br />b) Label Ditch 5-3 <br />c) Add Surface, Spoil, and <br />d) Add California Crossing <br />Groundwater Monitoring Sites <br />Locations <br />3. The Division cannot reproduce the flow depth on Ditch 5-2, which appears <br />to be a triangular ditch. What are the specifics on this ditch design? <br />4. What equipment will be used to construct ditches with bottom widths of <br />2.0 - 3.5 ft.? <br />5. Ponds 4 and 5/6, if approved to be left as permanent, will require <br />as-built certification when completed. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.