REV16205

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/7/2002
• Doc Name: Responses to Review Memo
• From: BGW
• To: JRB
• Type & Sequence: TR96
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
7373 Sherman SL, Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Interoffice MEMORANDUM
to: Jim Burnell
from: Byron G. Walker {~'-~
subject: West Elk TR-96
date: March 7, 2002
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
Michael R. Long
Division Director
This memorandum responds to your request for assistance (Interoffice Memorandum of March 4,
2002).
This review is conducted as if the proposed roads are classified as access roads (Rule 4.03.2).
Anticipated usage and frequency of travel is outlined under the MONITORING section of the
application (daily following initial installation, weekly monitoring during operations, for a life of six
months to two years). I have addressed the adequacy of the submittal if the roads are to considered
exploration roads at the end of this review.
Page 6, Proposed Access Routes The second paragraph of this section and the map appear to be
outdated. The submittal describes the Sylvester Gulch new road following an existing remnant road
(trail) in or neaz the bottom of the gulch. The US Forest Service at a meeting at West Elk on January
30, 2002 rejected this route up Sylvester Gulch. Other existing roads, For the most part, would not
be improved. The minimal 14' wide specification was elaborated on by the Forest Service at the
meeting, and includes turnouts, drainage structures, surfacing, etc. The only information submitted
that describes existing roads is the map. In order to address the adequacy of existing roads for use
as access roads, and minor extensions, recommend the applicant be asked to provide road profiles
and plans of existing roads (widths, turnouts, drainage structures, etc.) and proposed improvements
(a combination of as-builts and proposed construction). These designs (and as-built drawings) need
to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements of Rule 4.03.2, including certifications, if
appropriate to Rule 4.03.2.
If the roads are to be considered under Rule 2.02.2, only a narrative description of road or other
access route construction is required [Rule 2.02.2(2)(g)]. Other than the location of the Sylvester
Gulch road, my interpretation is that the application is adequate (i.e., whatever develops with
oversight and coordination with the Forest Service.
Cc: Dan Hernandez, CDMG
Sandy Brown, CDMG
Files: C:\WPDOCS\Support\C80-007 road review.doc