2010-03-25_PERMIT FILE - M2009094

• Permit No: M2009094
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 3/25/2010
• Doc Name: Second adequacy review letter
• From: DRMS
• To: Asphalt Constructors, Inc.
• Email Name: RCO
• 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]

March 25, 2010
Tiffany Hawkins
Asphalt Constructors, Inc.
7040 West US Highway 160
Alamosa, CO 81101
ummer-
rw"ovo
MAR 2 9 2010
DivwciOn of Raclam"On,
1Ainir,g and Safety
Re: Alamosa Pit, New 112c Application, File M-2009-094, Second Adequacy Review Letter.
Dear Ms. Hawkins,
COLORADO
D I V IS I ON OF
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor
Harris D. Sherman
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
Natural Resource Trustee
Thank you for the packet of adequacy responses you provided, which was received here on March 18, 2010. Review
of those responses indicates that the cover letter answered most of the questions and the exhibits are generally
adequate; however there are a few points that still require clarification before the application may be considered for
approval. Please provide responses to each item in the paragraphs below, and identify each by the exhibit to which it
pertains. Portions of the application and its exhibits that are considered adequate at this time do not appear in this
letter.
Exhibit D - Mining Plan (Rule 6.4.4)
The Division appreciates the noxious weed control plan developed for monitoring and controlling the Russian
knapweed at the site. Due to the established nature of the plant on various areas of the area, it is possible that some
contaminated material could leave the site, and later infest an offsite location. Therefore, (a) please ensure that
equipment and haul trucks are inspected and cleaned as needed to prevent the spread of this noxious weed, or
introduction of another weed to the site. It is suggested (b) that the seasonal weed monitoring be expanded to check
for other noxious weed species besides just Russian knapweed, and (c) that the weed control plan allow for addition of
other species should they be found on the site. Finally, (d) please be reminded that all monitoring, treatments, and
effectiveness should be reported in future annual reports. Please confirm these items.
Exhibit E - Reclamation Plan (Rule 6.4.5)
The reclamation plan appears adequate to attain a post-mining land use of rangeland. The acreages shown for each
phase that are to be revegetated with the rangeland species will actually be slightly less than the figures provided due
to the 15-foot wide perimeter road that will remain after reclamation. This comment is provided only for your
information; no response is required.
The single seed mix provided in the revised plan appears adequate for the site. However, the seed application rates are
still not expressed in terms of pounds of pure live seed per acre, or "lbs PLS/AC." I will assume that this is intended
for the seeding rates, and will add that notation to the revised plan, unless I am informed otherwise by you.
Proper seeding rates are dependent on the method of seed application, with broadcast seeding typically requiring twice
the seeding rate of drilling. Both methods are mentioned in your response, but it is not clear which one pertains to the
seeding rates shown. Please clarify which method of seed application pertains to these seeding rates.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines