2007-10-18_REVISION - M1980085

• Permit No: M1980085
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 10/18/2007
• Doc Name: Preliminary adequacy review
• From: DRMS
• To: Greg Lewicki & Associates
• Type & Sequence: AM2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~~s cQ~
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY I/'
Department of Natural Resources
1373 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
,~~~
COLORADO
DIVISION OF
RECLAMATION
MINING
- &-
SAFETY
October 18, 2007 f/ ~Cj 2
~wis,or, Q!!/Z/
Greg Lewicki Minis `" ~Sa f~t on
Greg Lewicki and Associates / 9 aq q„
Bill Owens
Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
11541 Wamngton Court Y Ronald w. caltany
Parker, CO 81501 Division Director
atural Resource Trustee
Re: Vagneur Pit, Permit No. M-1980-085, Amendment No. 2 Preliminary Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Lewicki:
On July 24, 2007 the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DBMS) received Elam Construction, Inc.'s
request for Amendment No. 2 (AM-02) to Permit No. M-1980-085 addressing the addition of 16 acres to the affected area
within the current permit area. This application cannot be approved until the following issues are adequately addressed.
Please submit a response to the following issues as soon as possible, but no later than October 22, 2007 so the decision
due date set for October 22, 2007 can be met. If your response or a written extension request are not received by that date
this application may be denied
ADEQUACY COMMENTS
1. The maps show a couple of locations where the disturbed area lies outside the permit boundary. Please
determine if this is a mapping error or if mining operations have affected areas beyond the permitted area and
revise the application accordingly.
2. The map appears to show the employee housing area has expanded toward the southeast from what was approved
in Technical revision No. 1 in 1992. Staff could not find any other permit revision that addresses this increased
acreage. Please verify, and if this is the case, revise the permit exhibits accordingly.
3. There are some inconsistencies between the permit area legal description and the survey coordinates shown on
Map C-1. Also there is some omitted data for one of the arcs in the legal description. Please correct these
problems.
4. There are inconsistencies in the topsoil berm dimensions, locations and volumes reported of pages D-1, D-3, and
L-2. Please confirm actual specifications and revise the application text to be accurate and consistent.
5. The maps appear to show that the proposed 700 cubic yard topsoil pile is partially located in a drainage channel
on the east side of the proposed expansion area. Please confirm that this pile will not be located in a drainage
channel or where it is subject to erosion by concentrated surface water flow.
6. Please ensure that costs for reclamation of the proposed canvas shed, asphalt pad and jersey barriers are included
in Exhibit L cost figures.
7. For final reclamation slopes on the east side of the pit with long unbroken runs, please indicate what measures
will be taken to minimize the potential for erosion features to form during significant precipitation events (ie:
pocking, contour ditches etc.).
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines