My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE105778
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE105778
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:58:39 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 12:47:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2003016
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/1/2003
Doc Name
Permit Application-Third Adequacy Review
From
DMG
To
Banks and Gesso LLC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St, Room 215 C O L O RA D O <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 D I v 1 5 1 0 N O F <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 M 1 N E <br />RA L S <br /> ~ <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 G E O L O G Y <br /> 0.ECtAMATION•MINING <br /> SA FETY•SCIENCE <br />August ], 2003 <br />Paul Gesso sill Owens <br /> Governor <br />Banks and Gesso, LLC <br />720 Kipling St., Suite 117 Greg E. W alcher <br /> Executive Director <br />Lakewood, CO 80215 <br /> Ronald W. Cattany <br /> Division Director <br /> Natural Resource Trustee <br />RE: SW Meadow, LLC, File No. M-2003-016 <br />Heit Sand and Gravel 112c Permit Application- Third Adequacy Review <br />Deat Mr. Gesso, <br />Listed below are the third adequacy review comments for the Heit Sand and Gravel 112(c) Pemlit Application, File No. M- <br />2003-016. The Division of Minerals and Geology ("Division") is required to make a recommendation no later than August 4, <br />2003, therefore, your response to the following adequacy review concerns should be submitted to the Division as soon as <br />possible. <br />Rule 6.4.4 Exhibit D- Mining Plan <br />1. The second adequacy review requested that the Applicant submit measures that will be taken in order to contain spills <br />related to damaged fittings on the tanks or which occur while filling these tanks and barrels. The Applicant committed to <br />construction of berms azormd the drums to serve as secondary containment. This commitment, however, does not <br />address secondary containment related to the above-ground storage tanks, nor will the proposed berms prevent spilled <br />materials from infiltrating into the soil. Please indicate what other measures will be incorporated, such as berms and <br />liners, for both the drums and the above-ground storage tanks. <br />2. For purposes of clarification, the Mine Plan implies that the slurry wall will be installed prior to dewatering the pit. <br />Please specify the timing on these events. <br />3. The fnst adequacy review response indicates that a French drain will be installed at the site. Please specify the timing of <br />installation relative to installafion of the slurry wall. Also be aware that design and specificafions for the French drain <br />must be submitted to the Division in the form of a Technical Revision for review and approval prior to its installation. <br />Rule 6.4.7 Exhibit G -Water Information <br />4. The second adequacy review requested that the Applicant provide a study based on current, site specific-data, or support <br />the findings in the WWE document, submitted with the first adequacy review response, with current, site-specific data. <br />The Applicant has submitted a follow up study -Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for Heit Aggregate <br />Resource Operation Weld County Aquatic and Wetland Nursery and Coyle Property (W WE second report) -which does <br />address certain site-specific issues, but wMch does not define a model for the groundwater and potential impacts in the <br />vicinity of the site. Therefore, the Division will still require further reporting in the form of a Technical Revision or <br />Amendment and Division approval, related to a groundwater and impact model prior to the commencement of mining <br />activity at the site. This model may dictate required changes to the mining plan for the site. <br />5. The second adequacy review indicated that due to the uncertainty of the accuracy of the fmdings in the first W WE report, <br />under current conditions, the Division cannot accept the proposed trigger point, which would require assessment and <br />possible mitigation, of a drop of 5 feet in groundwater level below seasonal fluctuation as proposed by the Applicant, and <br />Office of Office of Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines Ceologlcal Survey <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.