PERMFILE41446 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III STATE O~ COLUI~UU DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Depadmenl of Natural Resources 1313 Shermon 51., Room ? 15 Denver, Colorado 80?03 Phone: 1303) 8663567 FA\: (3031 83?-8106 August 2~, 1999 Michelle R. Rehmann International Uranium (USA) Corp. Independence Plaza, Suite 950 1050 Seventeenth Sveet Denver CO 80265 RECEIVED AUG 3 0 i~9, DIV. OF MINERALS 8 GEOI nrv DENVER pFFICE FILELIC FILE Cppy ~E: DIVISION O F MINERALS GEOLOGY RECLAMATION MINING•SAFETY Greg E. Walther E~ecuuve Duector Michael B. LOng Division Director Bin Owens envernnr Re: Van 4 Shaft, File No. M-97-032, New 110 Application, Second Adequacy Review Letter, Reclamation Cost Estimate. Dear Ms. Rehmann, have reviewed your last submitted adequacy response, dated 7/27/99. Aside from only a couple comments I have, it appears that all of the Division's application requirements have been satisfied. Besides these comments in the following paragraphs, I will include some reiteration of past questions and responses, as a short summary or clarification, since we are now at the end of drawn out application process. The recent submittal included an updated map, which now appears to include all necessary items. The existing and proposed vent shaft sites (vent shafts # 1 and #2) are adequately labelled. I acknowledge that the location for the proposed vent shaft (#2) cannot be precisely determined at present, but please contact the Division at the time that it is to be constructed, so that its location, etc., may be documented. The map is now adequate. Your letter included a statement that the one-half-acre permitted areas associated with each vent shaft are [o be circular with a diameter of 75 feet. Aone-half-acre circle has a diameter of 166.5 feet (a square has a side measuring 147.6 feet). This gives you significantly more operating room at the sites, for whichever configuration of area you choose. You do not need to modify the maps or even comment on this observation, since it is included Here only for your information. Please note, however, that your vent site(s) must be marked on the ground, with the markers and/or disturbance for each site not exceeding one half acre. Your last letter included soil information, which appeared to be for all the different sails in the vicinity. Three of them described mesa-top soils, one or more of which is what presumably exists on the permit area. Each description showed an adequate rooting depth for revegetation, with no other restrictions. I believe that you should strive for at least 6 inches of replaced soil depth, especially if it is to be spread on waste rock. I will comment on topsoil depth more below. You stated that 6 to 8 inches of topsoil depth will be replaced during reclamation. This is acceptable; the soil information exhibit is adequate. I have also completed a reclamation cost estimate, enclosed herewith, which should cover all the necessary items to fully reclaim the 8.4 acres to be affected under the new pernut. A few assumptions were made on these costs, after considering all necessary factors for reclaiming the site. Some of these are discussed below, and some are included in the reclamation cost packet. As discussed in an earlier letter, we agree dial not all of the permit area will require additional topsoil to be spread. The immediate area around [he buildings appears to prescndy contain adequate topsoil. If, however, building