My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-12-16_PERMIT FILE - M2009078 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2009078
>
2009-12-16_PERMIT FILE - M2009078 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:57:46 PM
Creation date
12/22/2009 8:01:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2009078
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
12/16/2009
Doc Name
Preliminary Adequacy Review
From
DRMS
To
Greg Lewicki and Associates
Email Name
GRM
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.
/
4
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
Preliminary Adequacy Review <br />M- 2009 -078 <br />Gehrman Pit <br />12 -16 -09 <br />Per Rule 1.6.2(e) the Division requires proof of notice to all adjacent landowners <br />identified in the amendment application. DRMS has received proof of notice to the <br />adjacent landowners. Please see 6.4.3(a) below for clarification on two of the supplied <br />notices. <br />Per Rule 6.4, Specific requirements for a 112 Reclamation Operation: <br />6.4.1 — Exhibit A, Legal Description, is adequate. <br />6.4.2 — Exhibit B, Index Map is adequate. <br />6.4.3 — Exhibit C, Pre- Mining and Mining Maps. <br />(a) Maps C do not identify Wagner Ranches or Robert Quillen who were notified <br />as adjacent landowners. Please clarify why these individuals were noticed <br />and where they are in relation to the proposed mine. Correct maps if <br />required. <br />(b) is adequate. <br />(c) is adequate. <br />(d), Please clarify the exact acreage of the proposed total "affected" area. It is <br />noted that 2.8 acres in area are identified as wetlands on Map C -1 and 268 <br />acres are to be pit area. Is the remaining 8.73acres all berm and sediment: <br />pond area? <br />(e), Map C -1 shows vegetation on site. <br />(f), Addressed in Exhibit G <br />(g), All structures with 200 feet appear to be addressed on Maps C -1 and 2. <br />(h), Soils information provided in application appendix. <br />6.4.4 — Exhibit D, Mining Plan <br />(a) Mining methods are described in Mine Plan Narrative. <br />(b) Earthmoving is covered in the Mine Plan narrative. As presented highwall <br />will need to be backfilled to 3:1 slope as part of reclamation. <br />(c) The Division notes that the adjacent Bunn Ranch permitted site has extensive <br />engineering and structures to prevent permanent capture of that pit by the <br />Yampa River. Please provide details as to why this site, which is adjacent to <br />the Bunn and in some respects more likely to be impacted by the main river <br />channel and Ana Branch does not have the same features. <br />(d) Area to be worked at one time is in Table D -2 <br />(e) Time table of work is noted in Table D -2. <br />(f) Deposit information is described in Mine Plan Narrative. <br />(g) Commodities are described in Mine Plan Narrative. <br />(h) No incidental products are noted. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.