2008-10-22_REVISION - M2006084

• Permit No: M2006084
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 10/22/2008
• Doc Name: Preliminary adequacy review
• From: DRMS
• To: Greg Lewicki & Associates
• Type & Sequence: AM
• Email Name: THM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

SIS S STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY ?
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203 _n
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
pivisia?l of r;.,,c1amati0n,
/- V.;Bing and S
October 22, 2008 V
COLORADO
D IV IS I ON OF
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor
Harris D. Sherman
Mr. Ben Langenfeld Executive Director
Greg Lewicki & Associates Ronald W. Catt
? Division Director
or
11541 Warrington Court VVV Natural Resource Trustee
Parker, CO 80138
Re: Connell Resources, Inc., White City Pit, 112 Permit No. M-2006-084,A endment Application,
Preliminary Adequacy Review. r
Dear Mr. Ben Langenfeld:
The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety has begun the review process for the above referenced 112
amendment application. The project appears to be a straight forward request to increase the maximum allowable
disturbed acreage from 42.8 acres to 81.95 acres and to increase annual production rate from 250,000 to 500,000
tons per year. A review of the application has revealed a few clarifications and issues that need to be addressed.
1) Please describe how there will be no temporary stockpiles created during the mining process. Will material
be loaded into trucks and then be fed directly into a crusher? Will mining only be conducted on an as
needed basis that will not require unprocessed material to be stockpiled?
2) Please clarify what depth of mining will take place within the wetland footprint.
3) Please specify the approximate amount of topsoil to be stockpiled along the southern border of the permit
area within the process area.
4) Please provide the Division copies of all permits required by and correspondence with the USACOE that is
related to the proposed mining and reclamation in the wetlands in phases 5-7 and the proposed 38.71 acres
of wetland shelf.
5) In Exhibit E, it is stated that the lake surface is proposed to be 48.92 acres. The Reclamation Map indicates
that the final reclaimed lake is proposed to be 18.8 acres. Please clarify the correct amount of proposed lake
surface acreage.
6) In Exhibit E, part 1. of the General Reclamation Plan indicates that 19.37 acres of wetlands are proposed.
This amount is different than the amount shown on Map F that shows a total of 38.71 acres of wetland.
Please specify what the correct proposed amount of wetlands to be constructed is.
7) In Exhibit J, the last statement on page J- 1, "Seethe letter from USA COE on the following page". There is
not a letter on the following page. Please provide the referenced letter from the USACOE if it does actually
exist.
8) In Exhibit L, Item No. 5, the wetland shelf is described as being 10.6 acres and on the final reclamation map
it is noted as being 38.71 acres. Please explain why the reclamation figure only accounts for 10.6 acres of
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines