My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-04-29_REVISION - M1980178
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980178
>
2010-04-29_REVISION - M1980178
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:55:56 PM
Creation date
5/20/2010 3:33:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980178
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
4/29/2010
Doc Name
Response to PAR
From
TAL
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
CN1
Email Name
THM
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.
/
10
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
THOMASA.LOGUE LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT 1 <br />537 FRUITWOOD DRIVE • GRAND JUNCTION • COLORADO • 81504 • 970-434-8215 <br />April 29, 2010 <br />Travis Marshall, <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety RECEIVE <br />Grand Junction Field Office csiven <br />101 South Third Street APR 2 9 2010 <br />Grand Junction, CO 81501 MAY 2 0 2010 <br />GRAND JUNCTION FIELD OFFICE <br />Division of Rcc?, DIVISION OF <br />Via: Hand Delivery / Minir+g and S"WY RECI-PVAPO-h! IV WN! C- M SAFETY <br />RE: MOORES PIT FILE NO. M-1980-178 d - e CPAS \-6 <br />Dear Travis, In addition to, the Moors Mining, LLC. correspondence to your office dated: April 11,2010, the <br />following are additional responses to your Second Adequacy Review, dated, April 8, 2010. <br />Accompanying are two copies the following: <br />1. Revised Cover Page, 1 page <br />2. Revised Exhibit C, Sheet 2 of 3 and Sheet 3 of 3. <br />3. Revised Exhibit D, 5 pages <br />4. Revised Exhibit F, Sheet 1 of 1 <br />5. Huddleston-Berry response to Mr. Allen Sorenson's comments. <br />To assist with your review of our responses, we have also included an additional "highlighted" <br />version of Exhibit D. <br />A response to each of your adequacy review items requiring additional information follow: <br />2) The mine plan states "efforts to segregate any topsoil from the surface material above the <br />sand and gravel resource would be ineffective. " Please provide more information to <br />support this statement. <br />The response submitted stated that the above statement has been removed. Please specify what <br />amount of growth medium will be salvaged to be used in place of topsoil. Also, what measures <br />will be implemented to protect the substitute growth medium until it is used for reclamation to <br />meet the requirements of Rule 3.1.9(1). <br />RESPONSE: Page 2 in Exhibit D has been revised to respond to the above indicated requirements. <br />4) Please specify the maximum proposed highwall dimensions specifically length and height. <br />The response submitted states that the maximum dimensions for the highwall will be 50' high by <br />150' in length. On average the width of a mining phase is approximately 500 feet wide. Does this <br />mean that only 113 of a phase will be worked at any one time? Also, according to the mine plan <br />map, Exhibit C Sheet 2, the side slopes appear to be mined to a 3H.•1 V on both the north and <br />south slopes, please clarify if this is the proposed mining method.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.