REV13105

• Permit No: C1980001
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 8/19/2003
• Doc Name: Memo-Summary of Adequacy Review
• From: Tom Kaldenbach
• To: File
• Type & Sequence: TR42
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
MEMO
Date: August 19, 2003
To: File
Permit number:
Doc. Class:
Doc. Type/Sequence:
Doc. Name:
From: Tom Kaldenbach `~
COLORADO
DIVISION O F
MINERALS

GEOLOGY
0.EC LAMATION•MI NING
SAFETY•SCIENCE
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
C-1980-001 (Edna Mine)
Ronald W. Canany
Revision Division Director
TR-42 Natural Resource Trustee
Memo -Summary of Adequacy Review
I have reviewed the above-referenced submittal. The submittal is technically adequate
based on the following three reasons.
1. Compliance with revegetation standards for commercial/industrial
postmining land use, Section 4.15.10(2) - In this Technical Revision the
permittee proposes to eliminate the 47% cover standard that currently appears to
apply to the conveyor corridor. (Language in the permit application is somewhat
unclear as to the applicable standard.) The 47% cover standard appears to be a
relic left over from before approval of TR-37 when the postmining land use of the
conveyor corridor was changed to commerciaUindustrial. The 47% standard was
based on pre-redisturbance cover of the West Ridge azea. The conveyor corridor
(in the Oak Creek drainage) differs significantly from the West Ridge area (in the
Trout Creek drainage) in terms of soils, slope aspect, and slope magnitude.
Consequently, applying the West Ridge standard to the conveyor corridor appears
azbitrary. Based on the conveyor corridor's commercial/industrial postmining
land use, the appropriate standard under 4.15.10(2) would be vegetation sufficient
to control erosion. The operator proposes such a standard in revised permit
application pages in the submittal.
2. Comment period expiration -The comment period has expired with no
comments received.
3. Reclamation cost estimate - The work proposed in this Technical Revision
involves no new land disturbance and construction of no new structures;
therefore, no change is necessary in the reclamation cost estimate and the existing
bond is adequate.
Office of Office of Colorado
Mined Land Feclamation Active and Inactive Mines Geological Survey