PERMFILE54420

• Permit No: M2003037
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 9/23/2003
• Doc Name: Response to September 18th Memo
• From: DMG
• To: Banks and Gesso LLC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
September 23, 2003 v
Tug Martin
Banks and Gesso,LLC ~-
720 Kipling St., Suite 117
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
BEC LAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Acting Division Director
Re: Ha/dorson Sand and Grave/ Mine i/e No. M-2003-037, Response to September 18`"
Memo Fiom Banks and Gesso.
Dear Mr. Martin:
Staff has received Banks and Gesso's response to a review memo from Kate Pickford,
Environmental Protection Specialist, DMG /Denver. In reference to Banks and Gesso's
response please find listed below staff's response to the four issues noted. Ms. Pickford
and I discussed them point for point prior to writing this correspondence.
Issue 1 states that Banks and Gesso feels that six monitoring wells are unnecessary and
that four would be adequate to provide data for ground water depths. Staff disagrees and
will insist on six wells based on the fact that the area is very large (23.5 acres) and the
general ground water depth characteristics are not understood. Three up gradient and
three down gradient wells will provide more precise data and a clearer picture of the water
depth over the entire proposed disturbed area as opposed to the four corners.
Issue 2 states that the applicant has at no time indicated that mining will occur to a
maximum depth of 40 feet. The applicant would like to reserve the right to mine to the
greatest depth possible without intercepting or potentially injuring other water rights.
Staff agrees that there is no statement limiting the mining depth to 40 feet. The 40 feet is
the noted average depth with deeper deposits noted to the north and shallower 20 feet to
the south. It is not the intent of the Division to limit the excavation depth provided the
excavation meets the approved reclamation plan. The question does arise that if the
applicant goes deeper than 60 feet, how will he meet the commitment to backfill this area
to the proposed 5780' elevation. Banks and Gesso's own calculations show backfill
material is only adequate when the margin of error is applied which includes process fines
for backfill. The applicant will have to demonstrate to the Division that he has backfill
resources available prior to any excavations deeper than the application now states as 60
feet, along with any other issues noted with that modification.