My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-05-05_PERMIT FILE - P2016005
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Prospect
>
P2016005
>
2016-05-05_PERMIT FILE - P2016005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:21:46 PM
Creation date
5/9/2016 8:13:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
P2016005
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/5/2016
Doc Name
Response to Notice of Deficiencies
From
David McHugh
To
DRMS
Email Name
MAC
WHE
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
Colorado — DRMS May 5 2016 <br /> 1313 Sherman Street Rm215 <br /> RECEIVED <br /> Denver Co 80203 <br /> MAY 0 5 2016 <br /> DIVISION OF RECLAMATION <br /> MINING AND SAFETY <br /> RE: Puma City Mine <br /> Dear Mr. Cunningham: <br /> Response to your May 5th letter: <br /> 1. Site access is on a US Forest Service road, it is on USFS maps and has USFS <br /> signs. It was discussed with USFS personnel while preparing a Plan Of <br /> Operations that was approved by them. <br /> 2. Surface disturbance will occur on waste/development rock. <br /> 3. The principle purpose of this initial NOI is to resolve the discrepancy in <br /> mine descriptions. State records indicate a 5'x9'x50' inclined shaft that was <br /> completely backfilled, while information provided by the seller indicates an <br /> adit (200' long) that would require only require a few man-hours to open. I <br /> have no interest in removing 50 cubic yards of rock using a shovel and <br /> bucket. This NOI is to remove 2 cubic yards to expose alleged adit <br /> entrance, and if found, explore & prospect in the adit. <br /> 4. The trail is on the historic road, one and the same. <br /> 5. Secondary containment for fuel containers will be able to hold at least <br /> 110% of total volume of fuel. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> David McHugh <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.