2008-10-01_REVISION - C1981008

• Permit No: C1981008
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 10/1/2008
• Doc Name: Review and Response Memo
• From: Dan Mathews
• To: Marcia Talvitie
• Type & Sequence: TR57
• Email Name: DTM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
COLORADO
D I V I S I ON OF
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
Bill
o Ritter, Jr.
DRMS INTERNAL MEMORANDUM G
Governor
Harris D. Sherman
Executive Director
TO: Marcia Talvitie Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
FROM: Dan Mathews kv, Natural Resource Trustee
DATE: October 1, 2008
RE: New Horizon Mine (Permit No. C-81-008)
TR-57; Soil Resource Information, Soil Handling, and Prime
Farmland
I have reviewed portions of WFC's July 31, 2008 TR-57 response submittal.
Specifically, I have reviewed information provided in response to items 4, 13c, 24, 28,
30, 34, and 39 of my May 15, 2008 review memo. Information related to the other items
of concern in my May 15, 2008 memo was reviewed by Susan Burgmaier (Thanks
Susan!), and the amended information related to those concerns was determined to be
acceptable. Susan's memo of 9/4/08 summarizes the 7 issues that she felt required my
review, as well as two additional items (Burgmaier "a" and "b", for which she requested
my input). My comments on these items are listed below (Burgmaier "a" and "b" issues
are incorporated into a couple of the other item comments).
I have one preliminary comment, which I think should be passed on to the operator.
Typically, in an adequacy response, the operator provides a cover letter with item by item
response to identified deficiencies, which is helpful in guiding the reviewer to pertinent
amended sections and also provides a means for the operator to provide rationale for
instances where they choose not to comply with requests made by the Division. WFC did
not provide such item by item responses in this instance, and it makes the review more
difficult and time consuming. I would request that future response submittals associated
with this revision and other permitting actions include itemized responses to Division
comments.
Section 2.04.9 (Soil Resource Information text tables appendices and maps)
4. In the initial adequacy review, the Division made the following request:
Please revise Table 2.04.9-2 to speck that proposed coarse fraction limits
are based on % by volume, or, if applicable, provide documentation to
Uttice of
Office Land Reclamation of
Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines