PERMFILE112009

• Permit No: M2006046
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/4/2006
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review #2
• From: DRMS
• To: Banks and Gesso
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
October 4, 2006
COLORADO
DIVISION O F
RECLAMATION
M[NING
- &-
SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
Mr. Bill Roberts Ronald W. Cattany
Silt Sand & Gravel LLC Division Director
~ Natural Resource Trustee
0304 Highway 133
Carbondale, CO 81623
RE: Adequacy Review No. 2, Proposed Grand River Park Project, New 112 Construction Materials Regular
Operation Reclamation Permit Application No. M-2006-046
Dear Mr. Roberts,
The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division) has completed its review of the responses to our initial
Adequacy Review of your reclamation permit application for the proposed Grand River Pazk Project, Permit Application
No. M-2006-046, submitted to us on your behalf by Banks and Gesso, LLC. Based on this review, Items 1-8, 14-17, 22,
23, and 26-28 have been adequately addressed by the applicant. However, Items 9-13, 18-21, 24, 25, and 29 will require
additional information and/or clarification. Listed below aze additional adequacy review comments. The item numbers
listed below coFTespond to the item numbers listed in the initial adequacy review. The Division of Minerals and Geology
(Division) is required to make an approval or denial decision no later than October 6, 2006. Therefore, your response to
the following adequacy review concerns should be submitted to the Division as soon as possible.
Rule 6.4.4 Exhibit D -Mining Plan
9. Based on the applicant's response to the Division's initial adequacy review, the Division understands that no fuel will
be stored on site until the operator provides the Division with a revision detailing the method of storage including, but
not limited to, the containment method and storage location. The operator should be aware that the revision could be
a Technical Revision or an amendment, depending on what is contained in the submittal. Please confirm if this
assumption is correct.
10. For the purposes of reclamation cost estimating by the Division, please provide the dimensions of the clarification
basin to be constructed at the northern end of the Phase 1 B mining area.
11. In response to the applicant's request for the Division to provide feed back of the applicants proposal "...to commit to
mining the final slopes in excavated areas adjacent to screening berms, such that subsidence may be presumed to not
be an issue in either the mining or post mining condition.", it would be acceptable to the Division if the operator
chooses to mine at a 3H:1 V slope to the base of the screening berm. However, since the applicant has committed to
maintaining a mining setback distance of two times the depth of the pit, a revision would be required to change the
slope configuration adjacent to the screening berms, should the applicant choose to do so after the permit is approved.
As in Item 9 above, the Division will determine whether the submittal will be a Technical Revision or an Amendment
when it is received.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines