2013-06-24_PERMIT FILE - M2013007

Home Browse Search

June 20, 2013 • • GEOTECN Civil, Structural & Geotechnical Engineers 222 South Park Ave. • Montrose, CO 81401 Ph.: (970) 249 -6828 • FAX: (970) 249 -0945 RECEIVED ,1 Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety JUN 2 4 2013 Ci r 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 DIVISION OF RECLAMATION Denver, CO 80203 MINING ANDSAFEIY RE: Proposed Uncompahgre Pit, 67057 T Road, Montrose County Permit #m2013007 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is not written in favor of or in opposition to the proposed gravel pit, but is intended to offer pertinent information the DRMS, Montrose County staff and the public. When it came to our attention that work by Buckhorn Geotech was being quoted in public meetings, we invited a dialog with the proponent of the proposed Uncompahgre Pit in Montrose County, Zane Luttrell. He indicated to us that he is relying on a limited geologic report we prepared in 2006 for a proposed subdivision as the basis for their geologist's analysis of gravel potential at the subject property at 67057 T Road, west of Highway 550 South. For the record, we had prepared the 2006 report for a different client, the Lone Eagle Land Brokerage, Inc. on the 552 acre ranch as a preliminary assessment of the general suitability of the entire property for development of a major subdivision. Our study was not only for a different client but also was intended to preliminarily assess the suitability of the site for home sites and associated shallow infrastructure improvements such as roads, septic systems and foundations. Buckhorn Geotech, Inc. in no way studied nor was asked to study the mineral or gravel potential of this property. Our 2006 report was not intended for use in evaluating mineral or gravel potential and, therefore, is not applicable for such use. The proponent of the pit continues to quote the gravel content found in the four boreholes from our 2006 study as the basis of their gravel assessment at public meetings, such as the recent meeting held in Montrose on Monday, June 17. We would like to state for the record that we have concerns about the true gravel potential of this site based on the four boreholes that we drilled for the purposes of evaluating the site for a residential subdivision. Our concerns are based on the following factors: 1. We drilled only four boreholes on the top of the mesa in question. These were not evenly spaced nor were they positioned to assess gravel potential. Two of the boreholes were at the northern end of the mesa and two were at the southern end. The main part of the mesa was not drilled (i.e. two boreholes are 1h mile apart where the mesa is at its widest). The purpose of our four boreholes was for determining depth to the underlying shale for foundation and slope stability concerns, so we recorded little information about any gravels encountered. 2. We performed no laboratory testing of samples collected in our boreholes below a depth of 12 feet. This indicates that their assessment is based on no quantitative data verifying our geotechnical drilling interpretations. RECEIVED Page 1 of 2 Ji IN ? 4 2013 DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MINING AND SAFETY