2005-01-04_REVISION - M1999120 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: M1999120
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/4/2005
• Doc Name: Response to Adequacy Review Ltr
• From: Banks and Gesso LLC
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Kate Pickford
Division of Minerals and Geology
Page 5 of 7
January 3, 2005
Regarding the proposed trigger point for mitigation, the applicant would like to gather
additional baseline data before committing to a trigger. The applicant commits to
provide this baseline data to the Division via a Technical Revision, along with a
proposed trigger point for mitigation, between the time that the slurry wall is installed
and before mining commences below the water table.
9) Shadow Effects: As described in the attached Wright Water Engineer letter, we do
not believe the anticipated shadow zone will affect the structural integrity of
surrounding wells, surface water drainages, activities, wetlands, or vegetation near
the site.
10)Effects to Little Dry Creek and Lupton Bottoms Ditch: Wright Water Engineers
has modeled potential effects to Little Dry Creek and the East Lateral of the Lupton
Bottoms Ditch, and concluded that the proposed operation will not have significant
effects on these structures and their ability to convey water. Please refer to the
attached letter report.
11)Flood Control Plan: The applicant has submitted a Flood Hazard Development
Permit amendment application to Weld County, and will obtain this approval prior to
disturbances in the amendment area. Based on discussions with Allen Sorenson, it
is our understanding that no additional flood control information is required for this
application.
Rule 6.4.8 Exhibit H -Wildlife Information
12)Division of Wildlife Recommendation: During the pre-operational inspection
conducted by the Division on November 22, 2004, and attended by you, me, Lynn
Mayer of L.G. Everist, Inc. and Sharlene Haeger of the Division of Wildlife, Ms.
Haeger concluded that the proposed 200 foot setback from the South Platte River
bank was sufficient to meet Division of Wildlife requirements. The DOW's
subsequent referral response recommended a 200 foot setback from the tree line,
but gave no specific indications that removal of a portion of the treed area would
have a substantial detrimental effect on wildlife using the area. It is the opinion of
the applicant that leaving 200 feet of tree line from the River's edge is sufficient to
maintain a wildlife corridor in this area, and we ask for the Division's concurrence in
this regard. In addition, we note that Prairie Dogs are not a protected species, and
that agricultural activities (particularly irrigation of certain parcels) in the area
regularly force relocations of colonies to adjacent properties. The loss of this
particular Prairie Dog colony will not have a detrimental effect on Bald Eagles' ability
to find food in the area.
Rule 6.4.12 Exhibit L -Reclamation Costs
13)Bond Amount: The applicant has decided to slurry wall each phase prior to mining
below the water table. However, it has not yet been decided whether L.G. Everist
will submit a full bond for the slurry wall or request reduced (20%) bonding. L.G.
Everist, Inc. will submit a Technical Revision with bond request and estimate, and