GENERAL31263 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~i ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY 999 Department of Natural Resources ~ r-- 1317 Sherman St., Room 215 -" I"'~`~~'~ ®~'~8~~ Denver, Colorado 80203 fyp Il ~q ~P'~ G'•oi ~~®~~ D I v I S 1 O N O F Phone; (303) 866-356i ~E ~ h- ILl L~ 6d L_ [n MINERAL S FAX. (3031 832 8106 CE11/ ® ~6~n~e r & GEOLOGY MAY 1C ~loo~ ~B~~olel ~~gQ1,~Q24.-_ RECLAMATION !r!! L 1~ JL.{ - MINING•SAF ETY May l4, 2001 ~+~ of Minerals and Geology Rick Johnson United Companies of Mesa County, Inc. P.O. Box 3609 Grand Junction. CO 3102 Re: Corey Gravel Pit No. 3, Permit No. M-1987-024, Response to Reclamation Questions. Dear Mr. Johnson, Greg E. Walther Execulwe Duector Michael B. Long Division Director This letter is in response to your April l8, 2001, letter to me in which you request clarification about resolving a groundwater issue and about the final reclamation of the pit highwall. You and I have discussed these issues on the phone recently, but this written follow-up from me still seemed appropriate. As we had discussed in regard to the exposure of groundwater, it seems reasonable to consider the exposed groundwater at the toe of the highwall as simply the apparent change of the location (due to mining) of a known spring in the vicinity. It also appears to be the best course of action to provide a ditch, as you have done, to allow the water to exit the site directly into the ephemeral drainage as it formerly did. At the time of the February 23, 2001, inspection, the water did not exhibit turbidity or a sheen. Please ensure that any earthwork performed during reclamation allows for a continuation of the conveying of this water, providing positive drainage and stable, non- erodible surfaces. At this time, the groundwater issue is considered to be resolved, but it will continue to be monitored in the future. The need to reclaim the south highwall was also a question in your letter. The entire highwall is within the permit area boundaries, and has advanced to the southern limit of the permitted mining area. As such, it must be reclaimed according to the approved plan. That reclamation must occur if the highwall is ever to be released from this permit or further reclamation responsibility. Under the present permit, with its present boundary configuration, it must be reclaimed. If, as you state, the present permittee and landowner wishes to continue mining the ridge to the south, any new lands to be affected must be brought into a permit. This can be accomplished in one of at least three ways, and it may or may not have to include the area of the unreclaimed highwall: 1) convert the existing 1 l0 permit to a 1 l2 permit of larger acreage, and incorporate the new mining area into the permit; 2) apply for a new 1 10 or ! 12 pemit which, though it will have to include the new mining area, may or may not include the south highwall; or 3) fully reclaim enough acreage of (the floor of) the existing l 10 permit to have the floor fully released, then subsequently add (by amendment) new acreage to [he 1 IO permit, thereby reco~guring its boundary to the south. Obviously, if there is no "overlap" of area between the existing permit and any future expansion or new permit, [here will be an unmined ridge remaining between the pit floors, which is recognizably inefficient. If the existing highwall can be the starting point of any new mining to the south, it can continue to remain unreclaimed for such firture mining even while the existing pit floor to the north becomes reclaimed and released. WVIrtiS ~) yw~jfn.vLPj ~ ern owen, Governor