2008-01-14_REVISION - M1981207

• Permit No: M1981207
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/14/2008
• Doc Name: Adequacy concerns
• From: Banks and Gesso, LLC
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: TR7
• Email Name: THM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

EE] Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St., Suite 117 "
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
FIE]
[phone]
Fax [phone]
www.banksandgesso.com
11 January 2008
Travis Marshall a -"3
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety i,
101 South 3rd St., Suite 301
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Re: Response to DRMS Inspection Report of 12/20/07 and Adequacy Concerns,
Blue Pit, M-1981-207 Technical Revision
Dear Mr.,Alfarshall:
This letter responds to the Minerals Program Inspection Report, dated 12/20/07,
concerning the Blue Pit (DRMS No. M-1981-207).
The referenced inspection was prompted by a November 30, 2007, request for Technical
Revision submitted on behalf of Western Slope Aggregates by this office. The
requested Technical Revision consists of the relocation of an existing concrete plant
facility. As noted in the November 30, 2007, letter from Banks and Gesso, LLC: "The
concrete plant is entitled to operate and continue to exist at the site as a post-mining
land use by virtue of a separate, stand-alone Garfield County special use permit;
therefore, it is not necessary to include this facility in the bond calculation."
The purpose of the Reclamation Permit is to ensure the creation of a beneficial,
economically-viable post-mining use. A concrete plant is a beneficial post-mining use.
The state should also recognize that any warranty by the permittee that the concrete
plant will be removed involves the compulsory surrender of a very significant property
right. Garfield County special uses by Resolutions 81-384 and 93-020 were granted
individually; neither is conditioned upon the continuation of the other.
The Division correctly notes that the M-1981-207 permit for the Blue Pit has a financial
warranty that does not account for the concrete facility. The Division also notes that the
bond was last evaluated in 2000. In 2000, and multiple times prior to that, the Division
had opportunity to account for the concrete plant, since the facility was introduced to the
site in approximately 1993. Technical revisions, bond reviews, and regular inspections
have never prompted the Division to recalculate the M-1981-207. Presumably, this is
because the concrete facility is not properly regarded as a component of the mining
operator's Reclamation Permit.
The current Reclamation Plan and reclamation bond, are sufficient to ensure beneficial
post-mining use at the site. If the concrete operator chooses to stay on the site at the
time of final reclamation and through the release process, it is the intent of this permit
not to interfere with this property right, as allowed under the separate special use permit
to a separate company. If the concrete operator does not intend to stay at the site, then
the operator would commit to vegetating the entire site following demobilization by the