INSPEC08080

• Permit No: M1978091UG
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 8/7/2002
• Doc Name: Response to operator concerning ore stockpiling at Vickers Ranch
• From: DMG
• To: Au Mining
• Inspection Date: 7/19/2002
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Rewurces
1313 Sherman SL, Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
August 7, 2002 ~/
Lance Bazker
Au Mining /
P.O. Box 821
Lake City, CO 81235
~
~
~~
rj~/
C~ D I V 1 5 1

~ MINERALS
~~
a ~,' &
..
.,
r~?~.:, GEOLOGY
9
^y
U ~
G RECLAMATION
pr~k~
Ig h MINING•SAFETY
on
o`
~
~'QB ll
rOr
- rg Ri
Owens
Governor
~jr
6gbr
°Br Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cottony
Acting Division Director
Re: Golden Wonder Mine, Permit M-1978-091, Response to Operator Concerning Ore
Stockpiling at Vickers Ranch. C(ZE ; ~, ,,~ ~ t-c-'r t U ~ ~ L ~- -~ / r- ~ ., ;,
i
Dear Mr. Barker,
Yesterday I received your faxed letter and the attached materials, and today I received the same
materials by mail. One of the attached materials was a second copy of a letter you faxed to me on
May 1, 2002. hl that letter you make a case for why stockpiling the ore from the Golden Wonder
Mine should be allowed at the Vickers Ranch.
Your recent cover letter expressed the view that I might not have received your first letter back in
May. I did receive that first letter, and I apologize for any confusion arising from my lack of a
timely response. Though I did not respond to it specifically or by letter, I did refer to it in my
July 19, 2002 inspection report (see paragraph # 1). Additionally, in that report, I addressed the
rulresolved issue of offsite stockpiling as it is viewed by this Division (see paragraph # 3). The
Division is not in agreement with your proposal for stockpiling ore at the Vickers Ranch parking
lot, as it has been presented.
The Division's view of this issue is stated in much detail in my letter to you dated January 9,
2002, which can be summarized as follows: 1) The ore storage is considered to be a mining-
related activity and must be tamed out inside the permit area boundary. 2) The ore is a
potentially toxic-generating, acid-producing material and its storage must be subject to more
stringent controls and oversight. 3) This operation is a DMO and the ore storage must meet the
requirements for an environmental protection facility (EPF). The Division's opinion has not
changed; the scenario you propose meets none of those provisions, which is why we cannot
approve your proposal.
Your latest letter ends with a statement or request that (if I interpret it correctly) if your proposal
is not acceptable to the Division, then the matter should be brought to the Board for a decision.
That appears to be the most productive path to follow at this point, since I cannot approve a plan
which is not in conformance with the requirements of the Act, or the Rules and Regulations.
I can place your request for a hearing for appeal on the next Mined Land Reclamation Board
monthly agenda, if you wish. The meeting will be held in Room 318 of the Centennial Building,
1313 Sherman Street, in Denver, CO, on September 18 and 19, 2002. The meeting begins on
Wednesday at 10:00 a.m., and on Thursday at 9:00 a.m.
7 y
i