My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-07-26_PERMIT FILE - M2012052 (5)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2012052
>
2013-07-26_PERMIT FILE - M2012052 (5)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:22:55 PM
Creation date
7/30/2013 11:16:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2012052
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
7/26/2013
Doc Name
Adequacy Response
From
Braun Environmental, Inc.
To
DRMS
Email Name
TC1
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.
/
72
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
Responses to July 3, 2013 Preliminary Adequacy Review — Environmental Protection Plan <br />Comment 1 Please provide an explanation as to why Denis M Robert was removed as the owner of <br />both the surface and subsurface between December 31, 2012 and June 5, 2013. <br />Response: <br />There is no Denis M. Robert that we know of that owns either surface or mineral rights in the vicinity of <br />the permit area. There is a person named Robert M. Denis that owns a portion of the Eldorado claim <br />(MA 8068 — SCH 0025210). As was discussed in the meeting at DRMS offices at 1313 Sherman Street on <br />March 4, 2013, Mr. Denis owned a key parcel within the permit area that was holding up the company's <br />ability to assemble the permit. An agreement was finally able to be made and the company now has a <br />lease /purchase option on the parcel. Mr. Denis's name was inadvertently left off of the list in items 8 <br />and 9, but is shown in Exhibit J. His name will be added to Items 8 and 9. For further clarification, the <br />company has previously provided a copy of the lease agreement with Mr. Denis, as requested by DRMS. <br />Comment 2 The longitude for the Mine Entrance Location is Item 11 is inconsistent with that <br />shown on Exhibit A. <br />Response: <br />The longitude of 105 9' 47.6" is incorrect and is based on an earlier measurement. The location shown <br />on Exhibit A of 105 9' 49" is correct. The location shown under Item 11 has been corrected. Note that <br />the distance between the two coordinates is only about 100 feet, well within tolerance for finding the <br />Permit Area. As for moving the location of the point, it is at the mine site instead of at the access gate. <br />Since the mine is not yet in production, and some of the issues associated with production are not yet <br />established, we request these coordinates continue to be used so that we remain consistent if the main <br />gate located down the road from the operation is moved. <br />Comment 4 The range of the township listed is not consistent <br />Response: <br />The range has been changed on the Exhibit A to R70W. <br />Comment 5 Identify the approximately 3 acres of pre -law disturbed area on Exhibit Map E -1A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.