2004-03-30_REVISION - M1977020

• Permit No: M1977020
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/30/2004
• Doc Name: Third Adequacy Review
• From: DMG
• To: Greg Lewicki and Associates
• Type & Sequence: AM3
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY t/
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman 8[., Room 215 C O L D RA D O
Denver, Colorado 80203 ~ 0 t v 1 S t o N O F
Phone: [phone] MIN &RA. L $
FAX: [phone] G E O L O G Y
RECLANATION•NINING
EAFETY•EC IENCE
March 30
2004 v/
, sill Owens
/
Mr. Ben Miller ~ Governor
Russell George
Greg Lewicki and Associates Executive Director
11541 Warrington Court Ro~alaw.wtraGv
Parker, Colorado 80138 oiviEioG oirector
Natural Resource Trustee
RE: Pit No. 1, Permit No. M-1977-020, Amendment No. 3 Third Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Miller:
DMG received Oldcastle's response to our second adequacy review letter for Amendment No. 3 (AM-03) to Permit
No. M-1977-020. The application cannot be approved until the remaining adequacy comments are addressed.
Please submit a complete response to this adequacy review as soon as possible, but no later than 12:00 noon
March 31, 2004 so the decision due date set for 5:00 p.m. on that date can be met. If your response, or an
extension request, are not received by 12:00 noon, March 31, 2004 this application may be denied..
As in the previous adequacy review, f have separated my adequacy comments into two categories; those that
address the new mining area proposed by AM-03, and those that address revisions to the existing mining areas and
the permit specifications that were put in place during previous permitting processes such as AM-01, AM-02, and
TR-01.
ADEQUACY ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED NEW PERMIT AREA
Please provide proof that all landowners (and easement holders)on or within 200 feet of the new
proposed affected area have received a copy of the public notice as required by Rule 1.6.2 (1)(e)(i)
and(ii). This would include Wright, Riley, Homefront, Johnson, Laughery, Heinz, DMEA (else), Kinder
(gas), Qwest (phone), and Tri-county (water). (The white receipts for certified mailing, included with
your response, are only proof of mailing. DMG requires proof that these notices were received (signed
return receipt cards or signed hand delivery receipt).
2. Response adequate.
3. Response adequate.
4. Response adequate.
5. The stability demonstration included in the response to the second adequacy review is no more than a
statement of stability. DMG requires a demonstration, using actual site conditions and accepted
engineering practices. To satisfy the requirements of Rule 6.4.19 for all structures within 200 feet of the
new proposed affected area, a damage waiver agreement or an engineering stability demonstration, as
described above, must be submitted for the .5H:1 V (or vertical if appropriate) mine face rip or to
advancing closer than 200 feet to any of these structures.
Office of Office of Colorado
r ..L...:~ol c„~,vv