PERMFILE102745

• Permit No: M1981220
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 9/4/1981
• Doc Name: 14 SAN MIGUEL CNTY PITS ADEQUACY LETTER FN 81-154
• From: MLR
• To: ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

1
S III III III III IIII III n0D IAMM~or
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
D. Monte Pascoe. Executive Director
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. [phone]
David C. Shelton
Director
September 4, 1981
Mr. Paul Sale
Road and Bridge Dept. Supervisor
P. 0. Box 426
Norwood, Colorado 81423
RE: 14 San Miguel County Pits - Adequacy Letter
Our file no. 81-154
Dear Mr. Sale:
~ ~ '~~~
1 have completed my adequacy review of the 110 permit application for the 14
similarly situated gravel pits captioned above. I have several questions and
comments that I will organize on an exhibit-by-exhibit basis below. I will
be careful to reference the particular pit involved or all of the pits, if
my question refers to all pits. Any exhibit or pit not mentioned is con-
sidered adequate at this time.
Proof of the two sequential weeks of publication should be submitted to our
Division as soon as it is available. If possible, this should b.e the affi-
X davit of publication. However, if this is not available before the Sept.
23-24, 1981 meeting, then a copy of the publication will do for now. I
will also need proof of notification of any adjacent landowners to any of
the pits. An adjacent landowner is defined to be one whose property line
actually touches one of the pit boundaries. These adjacent landowners (i'f
- any) should be listed for each pit. To notify these landowners, a certified
mailing of the publication should be sent to them. The return receipt, or a
copy thereof, should be sent to the Division.
Some of the proposed future land uses under application item.#15 are somewhat
\xd{confusing. For pits 1 and 6, the use of "Industrial quarry" does not seem to
p ~~~~,,' make sense. Once the mining has ceased, the area is to be graded and planted
~~r`~ ~~. (to the extent possible) as I understand it. This would then seem to most
probably be a future land use of wildlife habitat. Unless the site is actually
t3 planned as an industrial site, the use you propose would not be appropriate.
c5c`} ,,r.T• Please clarify this situation. For pit number 13, has the commercial or
~ t residential development actually been plannedZ An alternate reclamation plan
. `^ should be on file (including topsoiling and planting) in case the develop-
ment does not occur.
Exhibit B
1) All topsoil from any newly disturbed areas in any of the proposed permit
x~d+~areas should be stripped and stockpiled for later use in reclamation. The
~~ 'l stockpiles should be in an area that is protected from disturbance due to day-
~ k`1 to-day mining. The areas planned for such stockpiles should be indicated.
~v^
yi Q This could be done for each pit individually or described in a general way
for all pits. Any topsoil stockpiles left for one growing season or longer