Laserfiche WebLink
~~ Banks and Gesso, LLC <br />~~ <br />January 2, 2007 <br />Rick Wenzel <br />Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />720 Kipling St.,Suite117 <br />Lakewood, Colorado 80215 <br />(303)274-4277 <br />Fax (303)274-8329 <br />www. banksandgesso. com <br />Re: Grand River Park Project, Response to 2"d Adequacy Review <br />Dear Mr. Wenzel: <br />This letter contains the response to the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and <br />Safety adequacy review comments of October 4, 2006, regarding Regular 112 <br />permit application M-2006-046, the Grand River Park Project. <br />This submittal contains limited revisions to earlier plans. These include: (1) <br />elimination of the "clarification basin," to be replaced with a "regulating basin," as <br />discussed under Comment 9 and the Water Management Plan (Comment 21f) <br />below; (2) modified layout of oil and gas pad sites and easements, as dictated by <br />the gas rights/mineral lessee for the property; (3) removal of the southwestern <br />corner of the site from plans pending final determination of wetland status (see <br />revisions to Exhibits C-2 and F); and (4) other minor revisions and clarifications <br />as discussed below. <br />9. Based on the applicant's response to the Division's initial adequacy review, the <br />Division understands that no fuel will be stored on site until the operator provides <br />the Division with a revision detailing the method of storage including, but not <br />limited to, the containment method and storage location. The operator should be <br />aware that the revision could be a Technical Revision or amendment, depending <br />on what is contained in the submittal. Please confirm if this assumption is <br />correct. <br />In its September 6, 2006 adequacy response, the applicant stated that it <br />"commits to forwarding tank specifications and any other containment design to <br />the Division for incorporation into the M-2006-046 permit as a Technical <br />Revision." This is consistent with the Division's comment above, as the method <br />