2007-03-02_REVISION - M1994005

• Permit No: M1994005
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/2/2007
• Doc Name: PAR Ltr
• From: DRMS
• To: Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. dba United Companies of Mesa County
• Type & Sequence: AM2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

YrtC ~ DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
\~~ Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: {303) 832-8106
March 2, 2007 '/
Brent Kerr
`Cp Oldcastle SW Group, Inc
X2273 River Road
STATE OF COLORADO ~~,
~~ ~ b
RECEIVED
MnR o e zoos
Division of Reclamation,
Mining and Safety
C O L O R A D O
DIVISION O E
RECLAMATION
MINING
- &-
SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
dba United Companies of Mesa County
Grand Jlmction, CO 81502
,~
Re: Colona Pit, Permit M-1994-005, 112c Permit Amendment AM-02,
Preliminary Adequacy Review Letter. /
Dear Mr. Kerr,
Russell George
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cottony
Division Director
Natural Resource Trustee
I have reviewed the above-named amendment application, and found it to be very thorough and
well prepared. However, there are a few items that must be further discussed or addressed in
order to meet our adequacy requirements. The following items are arranged by the exhibit to
which they pertain. Please label your responses similarly to facilitate our review.
Exhibit D - Minine Plan (Rule 6.4.41
Paragraph four on page D-2 states that "a buffer of I S feet will be left on either side of the
(siphon) pipe to the edge of the excavation." It is not clear if this means a 30-foot width on the
very top of the unmined strip, or that the unmined strip will be 30 feet wide at the elevation of the
siphon pipe. The cross-section D-D' does not comport with either interpretation. Please clarify
the definition of the setback distance from the pipe. (Revising this information will not require a
revision of the C-3 Cross-section sheet.)
Paragraph one on page D-5 specifies the slope gradient of the pond bank that is just above and
below the waterline. However, the range of,the slope described does not perfectly correlate with
the range in Rule 3.1.5(7). Please review the requirements and revise the narrative as needed.
(Revising this information will not require a revision of the C-3 Cross-section sheet.)
Exhibit E -Reclamation Plan (Rule 6.4.51
Paragraph two of page E-1 contains a similar discrepancy concerning the slope gradient on a
specific part of the pond bank. Please refer to the above-cited rule and revise the narrative,
ensuring that it also corresponds with revised Exhibit D. (Revising this information will not
require a revision of the C-3 Cross-section sheet.)
Page E-3 contains reference to mulch application, though no specific type is identified. Either
weed-free hay or straw are acceptable under this plan. Cost to apply either type is the same, but
the cost of the mulch itself differs significantly between the types. Unless one type is specified,
the cost of the less expensive one will appear in the Division's bond calculation.
Office of ~ Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines