2002-03-13_PERMIT FILE - M2001054

Home Browse Search

~~~ ~ ~nericctn 11~1~inuzg & consulting, Inc, January 30, 2002 Mt. Bob Oswald ~/ Environmental Protection Specialist Division of Minerals and Geology 701 Camino Del Rio, Room 125 Durango, CO 81301 P.O. Box 738 • Ouray, CO 81427 ^ <470) 325-4320 RE: Comment Responses, Bridalveil Pit, File No. M-2001-054 Dear Bob, Re~~ MQR 13 24t1~ r/ i Ory`s~~ ~e d/~ ~~A Pursuant to your letter of January 11, 2002, please find below responses to your comments regarding the ~- 1 l0 application for Bridalveil Construction. The responses are listed below in order that they were given. I have also included those attachments required to revise portions of the application in response to your comments. Comment Responses: 1. The figure 3.58 acres given on Map A is the legal aaeage given in the courthouse. The figure 3.64 acres given on the Application, page 1 is the acreage from a survey conducted by American Mining and Consulting. In my work with mining claims and other parcels around the country it is common for locations of corners found in the field to differ from that recorded in the local court house. For the purposes of this application, the applicant believes the figure of 3.64 acres accurately describes the permitted area. The acreage shown on Map A has been changed to reflect this belief. 2. See response above. 3. The metes and bound description was taken from [he record in the courthouse. The Daisy Placer is located in reference to a mineral monument not found during the initial survey. It was thought for the purposes of this application that the Section Comer reference is more appropriate. The metes and bound description has been changed to reflect use of this monument, which can be easily located in the Feld. 4. The USGS map is skewed due to a 1 degree 39 minute declination of NAD 83 State Plane Coordinates off a true north. The applicant believes since all survey data is located in State Plane Coordinates it is more appropriate to reference North off of the State Plane Coordinates, however the USGS referenced data have been rotated to more accurately depict the actual locations in the field. 5. See above response to Comment 4 above. 6. The applicant believes all property owners within 200 feet of the property are shown. Since the applicant was not able or not allowed to survey all property boundaries of adjacent landowners, this resulted in some adjacent property boundaries not extending the full 200 feet from the permit or disturbance boundary. Those property boundaries have been extended a fu11200 feet, which is believed to be correct, however only with a full survey of adjacent boundaries could this be assured. Utilities owned by the City of Ouray have been located within the 200 foot boundary around the parcel. Since the applicant has applied for, attended two public hearings, and will receive a permit from the City of Ouray for the operation upon receipt of approval on this i