REV06638

• Permit No: M1982067
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 7/13/1999
• Doc Name: BLEDSOE PIT PN M-82-067A 2ND ADEQUACY REVIEW OF AMENDMENT APPLICATION
• From: DMG
• To: RICK DYKSTRA
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

•l III IIIIIIIIII'lllll
sss
~~~it
OF COLOI~DO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1 7 1 3 Sherman 8t.. Room 21 5
Denver, Colorado 80.07
Phone: [phone]
FAX: (30318]?-SIU6
July 13, 1999
~~
dot G
ty
F~
Mr. Rick Dykstra. Commissioner
Kit Carson County
P.O. Box 160
Burlington, CO 80807
RE: Bledsoe Pit (Permit M-82-067A) ?"" Adequacy review of Amendment applicarion
Dear Mr. Dykstra:
The Division has conducted a review of the County's response to the initial adequacy review of the proposed
amendment to the permit for the Bledsoe Pit and has the remaining adequacy concerns:
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
R E C L A M A T I O N
MINING•SAf ETY
Bill Owens
Grnemrx
Creg E. Walther
Executive. Director
hLChael B Lonq
Division Dueclor
EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (b): The County has responded to this requirement with the statement that "The
topsoil will be put to immediate use in conjunction with the gravel:' The Division is uncertain as to the County's
meaning. Will topsoil be salvaged and put to immediate use in reclamation of the mining disturbance at the pit or
does the statement mean that the topsoil and gravel will both be used in the County's road construction and
~~ maintenance projects. The County's further statement that "Reclamation will be implemented at the conclusion of
the mining activities, following the recommendation of the Flagler Soil Conservation District." also leaves the
Division uncertain as to the County's meaning. The Flagler SCD reclamation plan indicates that the replacement of
topsoil over the shaped azeas will be done at the conclusion of the mining.
Please indicate clearly how and when the topsail salvaged at the site will be used, if not to be stockpiled.
EXHIBIT D, Rule 6.3.4 (1) (c) (iii) and (iv): These rules ask for a seed mix, seeding rate and a seeding
method which the USDA material supF lied in the County's response from the original application does not entirely
contain. The seed mix is acceptable but there is no rate or method specified. I have checked the original application
and found two different seed mixes and rates proposed. One of these proposals indicates the seed will be drilled in;
C~ the other implies that but specifies the tale to be doubled if the seed is broadcast. Copies of these proposed mixes,
etc. are enclosed.
Please indicate which seed mix is interoied, what the quantity of the various members of the mix will be in pounds
pure live seed per acre and what the seeding method will be. Please commit to doubling the rate if the seed is to be
broadcast rather than drilled.
EXHIBIT E-MINING PLAN AND RECLAMATION PLAN MAPS, Rules 6.35 (2) and (3): The maps
provided indicate a square permit area E~70 feet by 680 feet. The acreage embraced by such a permit area would
total 10.43 acres which is more than a l 10 permit area is allowed to have. If the 670 foot dimension is changed [o
r~ 570, as suggested by the figures at the bottom of Page 2 of the application, the permit area would total 8.9 acres.
This is acceptable fora 110 permit area but less than the 9.9i acres proposed on Page I of the application.
Please supply revised Exhibit Ei maps with dimensions that conform with an amended permit area of 9.95
acres or provide both revised Exhibit E maps and a revised Page 2 of the application that indicate agreement for an
amended permit area less than 10 acres in size.