My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV02692
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV02692
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:00:24 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:03:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981020
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/20/1998
Doc Name
MUNGER FINDINGS
From
E CROSBY
Type & Sequence
RN3
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
To: : ~ <br />Cc: <br />Bcc: <br />From: <br />Subject: <br />Date: <br />Attach: <br />Certify: <br />Priority: <br />Defer until: <br />Expires: <br />Forwarded by: <br />lpr,esc <br />MathewsD~COAL~DNRML <br />Munger Findings <br />Thursday, March 19, <br />N <br />Normal <br />1998 10:50:43 MST <br />I have looked over the Munger Renewal Findings. I have some minor, "quick <br />fix" type editorial comments. I also think a couple of sections need to be <br />more substantially amended to incorporate revision changes to the reclamation <br />plan approved since the last midterm, and more accurately reflect the current <br />status. Specific comments below. <br />Introduction <br />Slip 21 listed in Intro pertains to Salt Creek Mining; has rously been <br />satisfied and should not be included here. <br />Summary <br />Newspaper notice ran in Glenwood Post <br />Under Fish and Wildlife summary, rather than the two sent ces regarding <br />mule deer and elk, I would suggest "Both mule deer and elk tilize at <br />within the mine plan area." <br />Findings <br />Section A, Finding No. 16. I believe the 2nd paragraph is a relic from the <br />Salt Creek to GVCC transfer, and should be deleted. <br />Section B <br />Roads <br />The findings here do not acknowledge the presence of the exis pre-law <br />access road. A paragraph of two tacked on at the end of t section, <br />describing the existing road and reclamation plan, ref ncing the "Statement <br />of Compliance" Walters provided for it, and includ' whatever specific <br />findings which would apply to it should probabl e provided. <br />Backfilling and Grading <br />Stipulation 23 should be included in this section, along with explanatory <br />narrative. The slip resulted from midterm review concerns regarding absence <br />of a backfilling and grading plan for the existing disturbance; and the fact <br />that the reclamation plan previously approved for the proposed bench <br />expansion would have apparently entailed illegal highwall retention. <br />Erica's narrative segues from describing the reclamation plan for the <br />expanded operation (which will likely never happen) to reclamation of the <br />existing disturbance on the last paragraph of p.44. This would be a logical <br />spot to insert language regarding problems with the reclamation plan for the <br />expanded bench, along with the associated stipulation, and explanation that <br />the backfilling plan for existing bench disturbance was submitted within TR- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.