PERMFILE122864

• Permit No: M1999083
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 8/23/1999
• Doc Name: ROTHER PIT FN M-99-083 ADEQUACY REVIEW OF 110 APPLICATION
• From: DMG
• To: JOHN DECHANT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iiiiiiiiuiii iii ~ •
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
13[3 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
August 23, 1999
Mr. John Dechant, County Administrator
Cheyenne County
P.O. Box 567
Cheyenne Wells, CO 80810
RE: Rother Pit (File M-99-083) Adequacy review of 110 application
Dear Mr. Dechan[:
The Division has conducted a review of the above referenced application which includes both unmarked and
possibly misidentified materials. The reviewer has assigned these materials to various Exhibits as it seemed
appropriate to do, e.g. the maps supplied with Exhibits C and D to Exhibit E, in order for the application to meet as
many of the requirements of the various Exhibits as possible. Subsequent to these assignments, the Division's
review identified the remaining adequacy concerns:
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
EKecW ive D~reaor
Michael B. Long
Division Dneaor
NOTE: UNIDENTIFIED INFORMATION ON SOILS APPARENTLY SECURED FROM THE SCS
HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO EXHIBIT B. THE COUNTY MUST INDICATE ITS AGREEMENT WITH
THIS ASSIGNMENT OR SUPPLY EQUIVALENT INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 6.3.2 (a).
EXHIBIT B, Rule 6.3.2 (b): The Exhibit B narrative indicates that there are no permanent man-made
stmctures within two hundred feet of the area to be affected by the operation. The Exhibit E Maps,
however, show a fence approximately 100 feet north of the proposed permit/affected azea.
The applicant should submit a revised Exhibit B in which the existence of this fence within 200 feet of the
affected area is acknowledged and the owner of that fence identified.
EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (b): The Exhibit C narrative does no[ provide the requested depth to which topsoil
will be salvaged. The soils description provided by the SCS and assigned by the Division to Exhibit B
(See NOTE above) indicates that the Schamber-Stoneham complex typically has 3 inches of surface loam
and 7 to 11 inches of subsoil. The Reclamation Plan also apparently provided by the SCS in conjunction
with the soils information and assigned by the Division to Exhibit D (See NOTE below) indicates that if
the A horizon is less than 6 inches thick, enough material immediately below the A horizon can be
removed to obtain this thickness. The County has committed in the Exhibit D narrative to follow the
recommendations of the SCS in reclaiming the site.
The County should submit a revised Exhibit C in which the Cduny commits to salvage the existing topsoil
and subsoil to a depth of 6 inches as recommended in the SCS reclamation plan.
EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (c ):The Exhibit C narrative does not provide the requested thickness of
overburden that may be removed to reach the deposit or even acknowledge that there may be some. The
SCS soils description, however, indicates that there may be some overburden present in addition to topsoil.
The Exhibit E maps provided by the County also indicate the possibility of there being overburden to be
removed by referring to overburden stockpiles to be located north of the pit.