2014-05-21_REVISION - M1998071

• Permit No: M1998071
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 5/21/2014
• Doc Name: Preliminary Review Response AM01
• From: Randy Schafer
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Email Name: ECS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

6'lrl�
40586 Co. Rd. 21
Haxtun, CO 80731 Reciely
May 16, 2014 �®
HAY 27�014
Mr. Eric Scott DIVISIpNOF
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety MIIVINGAND SgFET y
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Preliminary Review of a 112 Construction Materials Reclamation Permit Amendment
Application Package AM -01, Fryrear Pit #2, Permit Ml998 -071
Dear Mr. Scott:
I am submitting responses to your letter of preliminary review dated March 7, 2014 on the amendment to
Fryrear Pit #2 (M -1998 -071). Each section addressed in your letter is included in this response. All
responses are in bold.
General Comment.. For a 112 permit, there is a meaningful distinction between permitted area and
affected area; the terms are not interchangeable as they are in a 110 permit. Because of this distinction,
changes to affected area boundaries and/or increases in affected acreage require an amendment - even if
the "new" affected area is still within the previously established permit boundary. Therefore, in order for
the operator to avoid possible future boundary compliance issues that may require another amendment in
the future, it would be useful to make clear in this amendment that there will be no distinction between
potentially affected area and the new permit boundary. DRMS would then require that all references to
current and future affected area within the new permit boundary be removed, and the entire new permit
area be referred to as "potentially affected ". This revision will require re- submittal of several of the
current maps and require the careful editing of text in several exhibits. Please feel free to contact me to
discuss this issue further if there are any questions. Also please sign and date all maps provided.
We would like to clarify that there is no distinction between potentially affected area and the newly
proposed permit boundary. The entire new permit area shall be referred to as potentially affected.
A set of signed maps are attached.
EXHIBIT D - Mining Plan Rule 6.4.4): As submitted section "e)" of the mining plan and the mining plan
map state that "no processing of material is planned at the site ". However, section 1)" of the mining plan
states that "There could be some processing of the material on- site... ". Please clarify.
There will be no processing of material at the site.
EXHIBIT E - Reclamation Plan (Rule 6.4.5 ): No seed mix or seeding rate information has been provided
for areas that will require reclamation — please address.
Attached is the seeding information from the originally approved Fryrear Pit.
Item "d)" of the submitted reclamation plan states that depressions may be left in the drainage in hopes
that they would fill with water. Although DRMS has no issue with creating varied topography for
wildlife habitat reclamation, the permittee cannot create the "ponds" described or shown on the