PERMFILE61836

• Permit No: M1997084
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/30/1997
• Doc Name: MEMPHIS FN M-97-084 EXTENSION OF DECISION DATE ADDITIONAL ADEQUACY ISSUES & PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION
• From: DMG
• To: OURAY ASSOC LLC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~ iii iiiiiiiuiiiiiu ~
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1 313 Sherman Sl., Roam 215
Denier, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FA%: U03) 8J2-8106
October 30, 1997
Mr. James Poulos
Ouray Associates LLC
4025 Easley Road
Golden CO 80403
DENVER OFFICE
PUBLIC FILE COPY
FILE: ~-9~' -084-
S ITE:~~; ~___~
~-"
~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
lames 5. Lochhead
Execuove Director
Michael g. Long
Division Director
Re: Memphis, File No. M-97-084, Extension of Decision Date, Additional Adequacy Issues,
and Preliminary Reclamation Cost Estimate.
Dear Mr. Poulos,
I have received a note from your agent, Mr. Robert Larson, indicating that he wishes the decision
date to be extended beyond the original 10/29!97 date. I have approved this extension, and feel
that it will not need to be longer than a few days at most.
The other recent materials received by this office in regard to the application center on several
technical issues of the operation, and issues related to the boundary and acreage of the permit. As
you know from my last letter (dated 10/27/97), written in response to your first boundary change,
an increase in acreage is one factor which acts to "amend" an application. :Unendments require
renotifications and a restarted 30-day period, which Mr. Larson did not wish to occur. Since the
increased acreage was apparently the only factor, of all the adequacy responses, which required
that the application be considered amended, Mr. Larson subsequently submitted a second revision
of the boundary configuration, which brought the total permit acreage back to the original 2.44
acres. Therefore, there is no longer an amendment to the application, and the decision date will
occur as soon as all adequacy issues are addressed.
Tltis brings me to the adequacy questions part of the letter. I have again arranged the questions in
order of the exhibit to which they pertain. The earlier responses I received (dated 10/27/97),
which mainly addressed geotechnical stability, appear to be satisfactory. I will refer to details
from them in this letter.
Exhibit B -Location Map
The copy of the portion of the 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle is a bit "muddy" for the purposes of
determining an actual watershed area, which was what I had requested from you earlier. By
enlarging ltty own map, I Have delineated an area of about 20 acres which appears to be the
contributing watershed for the mouth of the area being mined. The vertical and rocky nature of
the drainage area will manifest itself in a proportionally large amount of runoffduring
precipitation events, and very little percolating into the upper slopes. A short duration, half-inch