My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE106735
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE106735
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:59:22 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 2:10:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1984041
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/23/1984
Section_Exhibit Name
BOARD PRESENTATION R A MINING FN M-84-041 AGENDA ITEM 27
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
• i III illlllllllllllll <br />999 <br />Board Presentation ~r~-O"~ `~ '"'`~"~ <br />R,A. Mining - File No. M-84-041 U <br />Agenda Item 27 - May 23, 1984 <br />Background: The proposed Eagle-Gypsum Mine is located in Eagle County <br />approximately one and a half miles north of the town of Gypsum. The initial <br />mine will cover 12 acres within the 32 acre permit area. The intention of the <br />larger permit area being expansion should the operation be successful. The 12 <br />acre area proposed for the first stage of mining encompasses one ephemeral <br />drainage area. <br />The permit application for the Eagle-Gypsum Mine was officialy filed on <br />February 28, 1984. Soon thereafter on April 5, 1984, a pre-mine inspection <br />was conducted with B.L.M, staff members from the nearby Glenwood Springs <br />office. The Division tried to coordinate our review with the Bureau of Land <br />Management. <br />During our visit we observed the following: <br />1. As most of you have seen very little vegetation was growing on the <br />relatively steep gypsum outcrop areas, <br />2. Very little topsoil was available on the ridgeline; however, in the <br />drainage much more seemed to be available, <br />3. It appeared that there might be problems with reclaimed slope <br />stability, and <br />4. The proposed sedimentation pond and discharge device might need to <br />be increased in size. <br />We discussed potential problems on site and these were also conveyed to Mr. <br />Tingley by way of an inspection report. <br />The adequacy letter went out on May 15, 1984. Mr. Tingley responded on May <br />18, 1984. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.