REV03161

• Permit No: M1983142
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 2/20/2001
• Doc Name: HALL PIT PN M-1983-142 REQUEST FOR TR TR-01 PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY REVIEW LETTER
• From: DMG
• To: UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY
• Type & Sequence: TR1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iiiiiiiiniii iii •
999
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Naui rat Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room ? 15
Denier, lolorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Febnlar}' I~, 2001
Richard Johnson
STATE O~COLORADO
RECE~~EC~
G~.s ;' ~~~4 Clci iCE
F~%~i~ii ~i}_c COPY
FiLC: Wt-1943-r4--i
Si~r~: ~~ ~,~
Tom- • I~~ISiOW ~-01
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
bt
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
FEB 10 2001
DiYisinn o(MingraU ano linulugl
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. wale her
Clotted COn1panlZS Of Mesa COUnt\' Execonve Dlrcaor
P.O. Box 3609
Michael B. Long
Grand Junction. CO 8102 Divismn Direuor
Re: Hall Pit, Permit M-1983-142, Request for Technical Revision (TR-Ol), Preliminan' Adequacy Review
Letter.
Dear Mr.)ohnson,
Tlie Division is in receipt of the technical revision request for the site named above. Tltis technical revision was
submitted to remedy several problems noted during the last inspection, dated December 19, 2000. There are three
main parts of this technical revision: mining of a small ridge outside of the approved phase boundary, mining in the
perimeter buffer zones, and noxious weed control. I will arrange my questions and comments according to those
three topics. Overall the technical revision request is +vell prepared, and the concerns listed below are fairly minor.
The follo++'ing list includes the items which must still be clarified [o meet [he requirements of this technical
revision. Where I have simply reiterated your information, and am not seeking further answers, no additional
information is required. Ho+vever, if any of my interpretations are incorrect, please let me know.
1. The mining of the small (finger) ridge on [he east permit boundan' has begwi. This ridge is full}' outside of
the approved sequence of mining phases, and the currently-affected part of the ridge is largely in the 30-foot-++'ide
buffer area which was not to be disturbed. When the ridge is fully mined, it will have affected almost 90 feet of
length of the buffer strip. Your revised mining map appears to show that up to 4,000 square feet of this ridge top
will be affected by mining. No disturb.~irlce is proposed for the ridge slopes or draws below the elevation of the
gravel seam, is that correct'?
Mining is to proceed in a manner similar to that carved out in the adjoining Ford Pit, that is, by excavating toward
the tips of these small ridges, and leaving berms of urunined material. You do not specify the dimension of the
berm. and it appears that it is partly there to act as a safety structure. I assume that it will be a minimum of two feet
tall, with inslopes no steeper than 1.5: L You state that the berm will be removed upon perfoming reclamation. i
want to stress that berm removal must be by use of an excavator, pulling berm material onto the pad (new surface
on the ridge), with no disturbance t0 the unmined slopes. Will the resulting pad surface, after berm removal during
reclamation, drain positively toward the edges of the pad, or drain in toward the center of the pad?
2. The revision proposes to change the mining plan to allow disturbance in the buffer strip along the east side
of the permit, for a specified distance. Reclamation needs are also addressed, +vhich will result in a small change to
[hc reclamation plmi. The question about the area defined as the buffer strip which is disturbed, is that there is no
mention at all about the short segment of buffer strip to the ++'est of the SE corner along the south perniit boundan'.
That area has been mined fairly close to the boundary, and has been receiving backfill material to reduce the
high+eall slope gradient. It appears that this buffer segment on the south edge should also be addressed in this
revision. Please provide such information, to describe the disturbance and reclamation.