INSPEC04094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Deparlmenl of Natural Resources 1317 Sherman 51., Room 21 5 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 13031 866-3567 FAX 1303183LBIOG July 7, 1998 ~II II~II~II~~~~~ ~I~ sss RECEIVED 'JUL 0 9 1998 ~~ PU ~~cER ~~~ `/L~. ~~~/~\ I~. \Dh~i ~~~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ~'r - Roy Romer Alan Parkerson DivisionolMinerals&Geology covernnr Parkerson Construction, In0. Tames 5. Luchhead Evecmive Direuor 710 South 15th Street mLChaeIB Long Grand Junction CO 81501 ~ Division Director Re: Sunnyside Pit, Permit M-86-160, Proposal for Joint Reclamation of High 1l with Adjoining Mesa County Permitted Site (Durant Pit, M-78-325). Dear Mr. Parkerson, I have reviewed your proposed grading plan which you recently submitted, in whi h you and the Mesa County plan to coordinate efforts to reclaim the ridge on the highwall, share between the two sites named above. This appears to largely conform to plans which we had di cussed while onsite during the 12/12/97 DMG inspection. I have a few comments about the pl , which I have included below. First, according to the map provided with your proposal, the area to be affected s ms to be entirely on the county's permit area. I am not sure, therefore, if the ridge of mate a1 to be removed is confined only to the area indicated, or if the area indicated is simply w ere the county's grading will be carried out to match the slopes you will create as part of is coordinated effort. Will the county be the user of the material from their permit area, or will it e used for reclamation on both permits, or will you actually use the material from their permi area for export from the permit areas? Another question I have concerns the reclaimed slope gradient for the two permit My understanding is that though the county's plan specifies slopes of 3:1 (which is wh t yours plan specifies, as well) there may be areas of the county's permit which will remain ste er than 3: 1. The highwall within the county's permit area overall will require substantial gradi to conform to their approved reclamation plan, as revised in 1983, and some of it will likely rem 'n steeper than 3:1, if geotechnical stability can be documented. Hopefully the removal of the rid a material will allow for a greater portion of the county's slopes to become 3:1 than was previou ly possible. The county could benefit from use of some of the ridge material for use at the toe ~ f their slope.