2005-03-01_REVISION - M1978314

• Permit No: M1978314
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/1/2005
• Doc Name: Response to Adequacy Review #2
• From: Banks and Gesso LLC
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: CN1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Erica Crosby
Division of Minerals and Geology
Rule 6.4.8 Exhibit H -Wildlife Information
March 1, 2005
Page 4 of 5
12) Endangered or Threatened Species: Please see the attached letter from the Division of Wildlife,
dated February 9, 2005. Please note on page 2 the DOW's statement that "...there are no known
wildlife species that have been identified as a threatened or endangered species by the CDOW or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that regularly use the habitats on and adjacent to the
proposed pit." However, the DOW notes that the proposed mine expansion has the potential to
impact 2 of the DOW's Species of Special Concern: Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse and Greater
Sage Grouse. The DOW lists a variety of mitigation and reclamation suggestions. The applicant
commits to the following changes to the operation and reclamation plans to be responsive to the
DOW's concerns:
a) The active mining area will not exceed 35 acres at any given time. As mining progresses,
completed areas will be topsoiled and reseeded to minimize the amount of disturbed area.
b) The permanent reclamation seed mixture will be modified to include a larger percentage of
grouse-friendly species as recommended by the DOW. The DOW is preparing a
recommended seed mix, which we will submit to the Division either prior to the approval of this
conversion application (if received from the DOW during this review), or as a Technical Revision
after the conversion has been approved.
c) The applicant will continue to work with the DOW regarding additional on or off-site mitigation
measures, such as over-seeding undisturbed areas of the property to improve the existing
grouse habitat and encourage their continued use of the area. A Technical Revision to the
permit will be submitted if necessary to implement additional mitigation measures.
Rule 6.4.13 Exhibit L -Reclamation Cost Estimate
13) Cost Estimate: We understand that the Division will calculate a revised reclamation cost once all
of the adequacy issues have been satisfactorily addressed.
Rule 6.4.13 Exhibit M -Other Permits and Licenses
14) Army Corps of Engineers Referral: The Army Corps referral letter states that a Department of
the Army Permit is required prior to commencing any discharge into waters of the United States
(including wetlands). Please see the attached letter report from Coler & Colantonio, Inc., dated
February 24, 2005, stating that it is highly unlikely that wetlands or waters of the U.S. are present
within the proposed mining limits.
Rule 6.4.19 Exhibit S -Structures within 200 feet
15) County Road Setback: Exhibit C-3 has been revised to show the 200 foot setback line relative to
County Roads. The applicant will submit a Technical Revision to the Division when an Agreement
with Routt County is obtained or a slope stability analysis is completed, to allow mining and related
activities within this area.
Additional Issues
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan -Since the applicant has committed to mining well above
the ground water table, the proposed mine floor is much shallower than originally anticipated. There
are locations on the east side of the pit where stormwater could potentially flow out of the pit down the
existing drainages. The applicant will provide temporary erosion control measures, in the form of
diversion ditches, silt fences and straw bales within and along the pit edges, to ensure that all
stormwater is diverted into the pit. These measures will remain in place until slopes in these areas are