2006-11-30_REVISION - M2002114

• Permit No: M2002114
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 11/30/2006
• Doc Name: PAR
• From: DRMS
• To: Greg Lewicki and Associates
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman SL, Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
November 30, 2006
Greg Lewicki and Associates "

C O L D RA D O
D I V I S I O N O F
RECLAMATION
M I
~+
E
~
TY
SA
p~C p 4 2006
p F,ee;amaiion,
DlVi~lor, o Bill Owens
Governor
and Safety
Mlning
Russell George
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
11541 wariingtOn Conrt Natural Resource Trustee
Parker, Colorado 8138 ~ ~ /
Re: IS Road Pit, Permit No. M-2002-114, AmendnzentAM-OI, Prelirninazy A/dequaey Review.
Dear Mr. Lewicki,
The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety has begun the review process for the above referenced
site. Please address the following issues for clarification or correction:
1) Please submit proof of publication for the Public Notice as required under Rule 1.6.2(d).
2) Please submit proof of Notice to all Owners of Record of all land surfaces within 200 feet of the
boundaries as required by Rule 1.6.2(e)(ii) and (g).
3) Map C-1 is labeled as Baseline, but referred to as the Pre-Mining Map in the application text. To
maintain consistence, please re submit the map to match the text and as referenced in Rule 6.4.3.
4) Maps do not identify structure and fencing on PLlblic Service company lands within 200 feet of
permit boundary.
5) Maps do not identify power poles along northern edge of Pit #2.
6) Map C-3 does not identify irrigation return ditch. Also, the path of the ditch indicates a severe
change in direction near a V path along the northwest and southwest portions of Pit #2. Is this
intentional? If so please clarify the reasoning for such as a path as it seems to create a situation
where a heavy flow could cause erosional issues.
7) The Mining Plan notes that 100' X I00' pads maybe left as undisturbed pillars for building sites
after reclamation is complete. The Division needs to know a maximum of pillars contemplated
as the number will affect calculations for reclamation. By going with a maximum number of
contemplated pillars, if less are built the reclamation liability will still be covered. Also, if
pillars change the contour of lakes in the final reclamation, a Technical Revision maybe required
to ensure the plan matches the approved plans.
8) Please provide a typical detail for secondary containment structures for tanks and the portable
asphalt plant. Recent spills at other sites dictate a more detailed plan for portable equipment
moving on site.
9) Please submit an asphalt contamination control plan for the site. [t is understood that asphalt
production is inherently messy. However, recent inspections at other sites indicate a need for a
written plan for compliance. Weekly clean-up, a designated area for stockpiling the materials
and a disposal plan should be submitted. This is particularly important given the closeness of
ground and surface waters.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines