INSPEC21465 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 7373 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: (303) 832-8106 October 7, 2002 Terry V. Wetz ~ Director of Project Development International Uranium (USA) Corporation /1 Independence Plaza, Suite 950 1050 Seventeenth Street DIVISION O r MINERALS p ~ GEOLOGY ~,(~ ~~° ~ MENING SqF ON /~ry NOV ~ ~ ~W![ Oivisionollyinera7sandCo otoBY Bill Owens Greg E.Walcher Executive Director Ronald W. Cattany Acting Division Director Denver, CO 80265 /` Re: St. Jude Mine, Permit M-1978-039, Review of Updated Permit Map (Preliminary), Submitted in Response to Inspection of 12/18/01. ,~' Dear Mr. Wetz, I have received the packet of preliminary maps for ail the sites affected in the "Sunday Mine Group." Though your packet included maps and text materials for all five of the separate permit files for the mines in this group, 1 have limited this letter to those responses which address the issues associated with the single permitted mine named above. My responses concerning the other permitted sites are contained in separate letters. First, let me thank you for the quality and comprehensiveness of the product you submitted; they are the type of maps I had hoped would be submitted and I feel they will be of great help in future monitoring and reporting of this site. The map scales and types of information are appropriate and clearly depicted. I understand the maps were generated at no small expense, but this endeavor should not have to repeated soon. With this preliminary map in-hand, we may now define exactly which of the features shown are to be regarded as currently disturbed under this permit, which of the permitted features were disturbed but which might now be considered reclaimed (though not necessarily "released"), and which of the features ma}r be considered "pre-law" and not subject to reclamation liability. For the items which are to be included in the inventory of active (and therefore, permitted) features, this map will allow us both to begin to document greater detail concerning an updated, more realistic reclamation cost figure. This will include details about the size or extent of a feature, its construction or characteristics, and the type of reclamation required in the final plan. I have tried to arrange my responses below in the order of the items in your letter, for ease in your review. Not all of the following items require a response from you. This site is operated under a 110 permit (for less than 10 acres). Under those rules and regulations, as you recall, the boundary which defines and delineates an affected area is the same as the permitted area boundary. The polygon shown may be labeled either way. There is a general issue of ensuring that all items shown on the maps as being pre-law or otherwise not liable to be reclaimed, that an adequate (but brief) description is made for each, so that if appropriate to do so, they may be clearly eliminated from the list of reclaimable disturbances. This type of description should be provided for each vent hole or other underground opening, above-ground structure or road segment, for which this office has no other information or conflicting information. Descriptions of pre-law vent holes and underground openings must be adequate to determine if hazards exist. There is a vent hole shown on the general location map, as being at the faz