INSPEC16540

• Permit No: M1984097
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 6/14/1995
• Doc Name: MINERALS CNTY USFS PIT PN M-84-097 SUBMITTAL OF NEW SURVEY MAP OF PERMIT AREA
• From: MLRD
• To: MINERAL CNTY
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

`~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III •
STATE •
OF
COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depznmenl of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St , Room 21 5 y

Denver, Colorado 8020) Il
~~

Phone: [phone]r-3567 I
FAX: [phone]
DEPAR'T'MENT OF
NATURAL
June 14, 1995 RESOURCES

Mr. Danny Rogers Roy Romer
envernnr
Road and Bridge Superintendent Tames S. LOChhead
Mineral County Executive Director
P.O. BOX 7D M¢hael B. Long
Creede, CO 81130 Div isi~n Direcbr
Re: Mineral County's USFS Pit, Permit No. M-84-097, Submittal
of New Survey Map of Permit Area.
Dear Mr. Rogers,
I am writing this in response to Kent Hager's recent letter to me,
with which he also submitted the new survey map of the USFS Pit(s).
He advised me that he would no longer be our contact for county
gravel pit permits, and that we should contact you from now on. If
this is incorrect or if this changes in the future, please advise.
Thank you for timely submitting the new map. I have noted that it
shows the boundary lines of the above-named permit, plus CDOT's
adjacent permit (No. M-81-150, which is also called the USFS Pit).
It shows that there is a very small amount of overlap of the two
permit areas, but no unpermitted gap between them.
The map which you had made and sent to us satisfies a corrective
action, which I had required of you as a result of my 10/12/95
inspection. Because the corrective action is satisfied, the
outstanding "problem" under the topic of "records" is now abated
(please refer to the inspection report). Additionally, because we
can now see from the map that there is no gap between the permit
areas, where unpermitted activity could occur ("offsite damage"),
there is no need to proceed to bring the county before the Mined
Land Reclamation Board for a possible violation. (There is,
however, still a problem concerning an insufficient amount of
topsoil. Please refer to the attached copy of the inspection
report for the required corrective action. Until that problem is
resolved, the existing permit will not be released.)
According to the letter from Mr. Hager, the county wishes to apply
for a single large permit which would approximately cover both
existing permit areas. If, as Mr. Hager stated, CDOT is willing to
allow the county to take over their permit area, obtaining a new
single "112" permit will be a fairly simple procedure.