INSPEC09285

• Permit No: M1977222
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 9/15/1982
• Doc Name: ROCKY FORD SOUTH PIT FN 77-222 - WILEY PIT 77-223
• From: MLR
• To: VALCO INC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

..
111 III1111111111111 ~
STATE O~ COLOFAp0 41('~~nur~ U. ln`A`A. f,nvo~~m
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
D. Monte Pascoe, EK~cm we D~~eclor
NiIIVED LAND REl:LA11IA'TIQN
a23 Centennial Build in 8,.1313 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. [phone]
David C. Shelton
Director
September 15, 1982
Mr. Thomas E. Brubaker
President
valco, Inc.
P. O. Box 550
Rocky Ford, Colorado 81067
RE: Rocky Ford South Pit - File No. 77-222 ~
Wiley Pit - File No. 77-223
Lear Mr. Brubaker:
I have reviewed the annual reports, my inspection reports of Zast year and
the general status of each of the two operations captioned above. I have some
comments and suggestions that I feel should be Yesponded to by you at your
earliest convenience. I am sorry that I did not respond to these reports
sooner (as I had indicated that I would), but feel that we can. now consider
the possible solutions of~any remaining problems.
Rocky Ford SOVth Pit
I have enclosed a copy of my inspection report of November 10, 1981. The
problem of a lack of topsoil sufficient to pc~ovide at least 6" of topsoil
for use itr reclamation has not been resolved. A response to my recommendation
no. 2 is still needed. If topsoil is to be imported rather than saved, a
detailed plan should be submitted that outlines the source of topsoil and
the extra processes and costs involved in its importation. I should add
that such a source should be justified to be reasonably secure since there
is ample topsoil available on site, and the Mined Land Reclamation Act does
mandate the salvage of topsoil found on the affected land. This plan may
have to be approved by the Board as a technical revision to the permit.
A response to my recommendation no. 4 is also needed. A reclamation bond of
$5,800.00 does not appear adequate to reclaim the 29.79 acres of stages O
and 1. Your reclamation costs for the maximum disturbance should be
recalculated. I would prefer that you do these calculations rather than me.
I can then evalu9te costs and respond accordingly. If topsoil is to be
imported, these costs should be included. If you feel that your plans
concerning maximum disturbance have changed from the original approved
permit, I suggest that you outline the new plans and submit them as a
technical revision or amendment to the permit. I will plan to schedule
t)~is bond revision for the November 17-18, 1982 meeting of the Board.
...