INSPEC20994

• Permit No: M1983112
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 10/4/2000
• Doc Name: MURDOCK GRAVEL PIT PN M-83-112 9/29/00 RESPONSE TO COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED DURING DIV INSPECT
• From: DMG
• To: KIOWA CNTY
• Inspection Date: 7/17/2000
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

-- --- - •
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
STATE OF
COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Re~our<es
1313 Sherman St., Room 21 S
Denver, Co~oratlo 80203 DIVISION O F
Phone: [phone] MINERAL S
FAX: [phone] &
GEOLOGY
FOR YOUR CORRESPONDENCE fllE R E C L A M A T I O N
MINING•SAFETY

October 4, 2000
Bill Owens
Ms. Karen K. Krueger, Adminisvative Assistant cOYCfOOf
Kiowa County Commissioners creg E warner
1305 Goff EAec°nve Diecor
P
BOX 591
G ntichoel B. Long
.
. Division Director
Eads, CO 81036
RE: Murdock Gravel Pit (Permit M-83- 112) September 29, 2000 response [o compliance problems identified
during Division inspection on July 17, 2000.
Dear Ms. Krueger:
The Division has received Kiowa County's above referenced response in regard to Compliance Problems I and 2
identified in the Division's report of the inspection of the Murdock Gravel Piton July 17, 2000. The status of the
corrective actions reported by the County in regard to these problems is as follows:
Compliance Problem I): Conflict between approved mining plan and reclamation plan in regard to
salvaging, segregating and stockpiling topsoil.
This problem is considered abated if the Revised Mining Plan submitted in the response is included in the
permit as a Technical Revision. Since the Revised Mining Plan resolves the conflict between [he existing mining
and reclamation plan and clarifies the County's intention to salvage enough topsoil to complete the reclamation
plan, the Division will consider the proposed mining plan as a Technical Revision to the permit and accept it
without the County being charged an application fee. However, if the County does not agree that the proposed
mining plan is to be considered a Technical Revision to the permit, the Division should be notified of this in writing
prior to the revision decision date of November 1, 2000.
Compliance Problem 2): Volume of salvaged topsoil possibly insufficient to meet the requirements of [he
reclamation plan.
This problem is considered abated based on the estimate made in the response of remaining available
topsoil at the site and the Revised Mining Plan referred to in regard to Compliance Problem I. The Revised Mining
Plan, which commits the County to the salvage of all available topsoil, must be included in the approved permit as a
Technical Revision. (See discussion of Compliance Problem I above.)
If you have any questions on the above, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~1w.yw~r G~~f•K~f ~Al f
James C. Stevens
Sr. Specialist