GENERAL39337 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. There are two separate, active permits in this vicinity: this one for Monogram Mines (permit M-1978-222 UG) largely located on the Monogram claims, and other permit for Monogram-Jo Dandy Mines (permit M-1977-293) located on [he Monogram claims, the Jo Dandy claims, and a few other scattered claims. The hvo permits are separate, and were never combined. That is why 1 sent you tvvo inspection reports, with different permit numbers and names, and describing different sites. Though many of the sites which are part of one permit area are located in close proximity to sites which are part of the other permit, they do not appear on the scone map. If any of your new maps to be generated, as discussed in (2) above, were to depict mining sites of both permit areas, they would have to be clearly labelled as to which pemrit they are part of. Combining the sites onto one map could be useful, as long as IUC is permittee of both permits. 4. Surce I have no different information to clarifi' this issue, I have to agree with you about [he permit boundaries at the numerous sites ("affected areas") as shown on Van Hom~s map. This is a 110 permit, and may have originally been approved for up to 9.9 acres. The combined acreages shown on the map have a total of 4.9 acres. am not sure. but that may simply be a computer-gencrated acreage based on the size of the delineated areas from the digitized map. Since his map appears to be a digitized version of the 1978 map, and it is not clear of the actual sizes of all individual sites on the older map were drawn to correct scale, it may be that the true affected area is different that 4.9 acres. Until better information is obtained, let us assume that the "affected areas" comprise the total permit area. [f any of the sites are in final reclamation, and small areas adjacent to the areas depicted on the maps may be affected by reclamation activities, please ensure that you contact me prior to such disturbance. We must ensure that we identity and account for all acreage, earthwork, etc., which will be affected. i. Permit ID signs are required at all permit areas, as described in Rule 3.1.12, but it is not specific as to the need for a separate sign at each separate "island" of permitted land in a case such as this. Likewise, it is not specific as to the sign placement location, die sign construction or size. You suggested sign placement along the county roads where they enter or exit the claim areas upon which permitted sites are located. This seems reasonable, inasmuch as there are separate areas, not all of which are easily accessible by road anymore. The requirement for permit boundary markers may not be so easily fixed however. To adequate delineate the boundary of the permit area, it will be necessary' to mark numerous points (by steel T-posts, for example). It might be useful, in addition, to laminate numerous copies of the permit area map and a brief metes and bounds boundary description, and attach one to one of the posts at each separate island of pernitted land. This has been done at other similar permit areas. If you have other ideas, please call to discuss them. There is a bit of uncertainty about the total actual area affected under this permit, when all readily available file documents are compared. Also enclosed with this letter are several lists of the sites comprising the permit area, aid some information about each separate site. Obviously all questions about which sites are really in the permit area must be answered so that the appropriate ones can be mapped, boundaries marked, disturbance accounted for in the bond amount, etc. If you have questions or comments, I may be reached at the Division's Durango field office: 701 Canrino del Rio, Room 125, Durango, CO 81301; tel 970/247-5193 or fax 970/247-5104. Sincerely, ~8~~ j~ ~~ Bob Oswald `//~~- ", Environmental Protection Specialist Enclosures a:\mono map into/rco