Laserfiche WebLink
iiiiiiiiiiii~iiiii <br />. . <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />fleparlmunl of Natural Resources <br />I } I J Sherman SL, Room 215 <br />Dcnver, (~uloraJu BO?(li <br />Phone: 1 Mlll N6G 3567 <br />f n%: (}011 K 4!-a l (l6 <br />June 18, 1998 <br />Mr Willard Travnicek <br />8815 County Road 150 <br />Salida CO 81201 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />~~~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Ruv Ramer <br />Gove•nnr <br />lames 5. Lochhead <br />&ec•ari:e Dvrctor <br />Re: Amendment Application, Butala Gravel Pit, M-77-170 nLChael a Lonp <br />DblSion Director <br />Dear Mr Tavnicek: <br />The Division received your letter dated ]une 15, 1998. 1 will attempt to answer your questions in the <br />same order they were presented. <br />First, the operator intends to mine the proposed amended area in pfiases. However, the existing <br />amendment application does not clearly state how this will be done. The operator should clarify the <br />method of mining when he responds to my second adequacy letter. As i understand it, the operator will <br />mine the site in 10-acre parcels. If the response clearly defines the method of mining, and the Division <br />approves the proposed method, it will become part of the permit. <br />Second, the operator proposes to strip topsoil from the first phase and stockpile the material (in a berm) <br />on the north side of next phase. Topsoil from the second phase will be stockpiled on the north side of <br />phase 3, and so on. The operator will be required to stabilize (with vegetation or some other means) the <br />stockpiles if the material is not going to be replaced within one growing season. <br />Third, as of today, the operator has not decided to remove the creosote site from the amended area. <br />However, after discussing the situation with Mr Butala (at a meeting here in Denver and at the informal <br />conference) he probably will delete the 6.2 acre site from the proposed permit area. <br />Fourth, during our discussions at the informal conference the operator indicated he will operate a dry <br />pit. Which means, he will not mine below the water table. He proposes to mine to a maximum depth of <br />40 feet (which is well above the groundwater aquifer). However, if he encounters any subsurface water <br />(source of the springs), he will stop mining the source area and place a foot or two of material on top of <br />the seep. Since there will be no pit dewatering, and since the main aquifer will not be encountered, the <br />Division feels that the upgradient wells will not be adversely affec[ed by this operation. The operator <br />stated he would address this issue in his response to the second adequacy letter. Currently, there is <br />nothing in the permit that states that this is a dry pit operation. <br />Fifth, if you would have at[ended the informal conference you would realize that dust, noise, and <br />watering roads and piles will no[ be part of the permit since these items come under the jurisdiction of <br />other agencies. The Division does regulate dust if it causes offsite damage. Mr Humphries gave a good <br />example at the informal conference. <br />The Division's jurisdiction is too extensive to send you some[hing in writing. If you want [o know what <br />