PERMFILE112421

• Permit No: M2001113
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 4/8/2002
• Doc Name: Second Adequacy Review Letter
• From: DMG
• To: American Concrete and Gravel LLC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
April 8, 2002
Robert Gydesen='~ .~°
American Concrete and Gravel, LLC
200 Industrial Pazk Road
Gunnison, CO 81230
~~~c~~
Re: Seahorse Ranch West Pit, File M-2001-113, Second Adeqaacy Review Letter,
and Extension of Decision Date.
Dear Mr. Gydesen,
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RFCLAMA710N
MINING•SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
I have finished the review of the additional adequacy response materials which you submitted for the 112c
application named above. Many of the items from my February 12, 2002 letter were satisfactorily addressed in
your response, and are not included herein. However, there are still a number of items still needing clarification.
The items still needing to be addressed are listed below. As before, I have arranged the items in the order of the
exhibit to which they pertain. All questions which ask for additional information about items from the previous
letter, have been assigned the same item numbers as listed in the previous letter. For better understanding of how to
shape your responses, please refer to my previous letter also. There are few new items needing clazification, which
are not numbered since there is no reference to the previous letter, but which nevertheless must be answered.
Please note that I am using the Division's arrangement and naming of exhibits, which does not correspond to the
arrangement you recently submitted. Your response materials included a set of six maps and written text, most of
which were identified by incorrect exhibit names. The six maps, labelled as "Exhibit A" through "Exhibit F,"
should have been labelled as "Exhibit C -Pre-mining Map," Exhibit C -Mining Map," or "Exhibit F -
Reclamation Map"' as appropriate. The text should have been "Exhibit A" and not "Exhibit AA." I will refer to
these items in the paragraphs below. If any of these are modified and resubmitted, please use the correct exhibit
name to facilitate their inclusion into the application.
Exhibit A - Leal Description (Rule 6.4.11
1. The written metes and bounds legal descriptions match the descriptions shown on the maps. (The written
description was resubmitted in your recent response, and identified as "Exhibit AA" though it should have been
properly identified as "Exhibit A," as noted above.) The trouble with this written description is that part of it
describes the edge of the affected area (the dark line on the maps), part of it describes the fenced property line
and/or permit boundary line, and at the point on the west end does not describe any of the depicted lines. The
boundaries of the affected areas and the permit boundary aze more clearly shown on the new maps, but the written
legal description was not changed at all. This calls into question the acreages shown for each gravel pit on the
maps. Please clarify all discrepancies.
Exhibit C -Pre-minin¢ and Mining Maps (Rule 6.4.31
There are several maps in the recently-submitted set of maps which belong in this exhibit, but which are not
labelled correctly (as noted above). Your "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B" are both Pre-mining Maps, and should have
been labelled as such. Your "Exhibit C," "Exhibit D" and "Exhibit E" are all Mining Maps, and should have been