PERMFILE48163 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;is. Susan Campbell-Bell October 5, 1993 Page ? Mr. Erickson, after reviewing your September 9, 1998 complaint letter, concluded that the jurisdictional issues raised in the letter, namely possible deviation from the approved mine plan and adequacy of the financial warranty, did not constitute serious environmental problems that would merit an immediate inspection. Based on Mr. Erickson's fami]iarity with the site and knowledge of the approved mine plan, Mr. Erickson felt that the amount of financial warranty was more than adequate to cover the existing level of disturbance at the site. In addition, NIr. Erickson felt that the operator's possible deviation from the phased mining blocks outlined on the mine plan map was clearly within the realm of a possible permit compliance problem, rather than a possible violation of the permit. b1r. Erickson's decision to handle this issue as a possible problem and not a possible violation is consistent with DMG policy. Additionally, Mr. Erickson's decision to conduct the inspection within the 30-day period is also consistent with DIvIG policy. Please be aware that the Minerals Rules under which the staff operates require that an operator be notified prior to the inspection. It is also current Program policy that copies of complaint letters be provided to an operator in a timely manner, giving them an opportunity to address [he concerns raised in the complaint. By providing an operator with a copy of the complaint letter, the operator has an opportunity to address each issue, regardless of agency jurisdiction. Also, such letters are part of the public record. Regarding your concern that DMG staff is not providing an adequate level of service to concerned citizens, it appeazs, after reviewing Mr. Erickson's permit file summary for the Stone Gravel Pit, that the DMG staff have, in fact, provided an excellent level of service to concerned citizens throughout the permitting process and after issuance of the permit. In response to pazagraph 4 on page 2 of your letter, Mr. Erickson has indicated that he did not receive a request for a hearing, as stated in your letter, nor did he receive any requests for information regarding a "County Road W" gravel operation, other than your inquiry as to whether DIvIG had received an application for an operation by that name. Additionally, DMG records do not contain any written requests for information or a hearing on any operation by that name. I recommend that any future requests you may have for information or hearings be put in writing and mailed to either our Denver or Durango Office. It is often difficult for citizens to fully understand the many challenges facing the D[vIG staff on a daily basis, while carrying out their wide range of job duties, in the face of many competing priorities. The Durango office is responsible for approximately 600 mining and prospecting operations, out of the approximately permitted ?,100 mining and prospecting operations in the state. Citizens are often not aware that in the Minerals Program, if a permitting action such as a new application review, permit revision or amendment, permit release request or permit transfer request is not completed within the specified statutory time period, the request is approved automatically, by statute. DNIG staff must also prioritize investigations of possible illegal operations, as well as inspections of metal, uranium and in- stream gravel mining operations, due to the relatively higher potential for serious environmental problems to occur at these sites versus dry upland gravel mines, such as the Stone Gravel Pit. DMG staff must also prepare for and present cases to the Mined Land Reclamation Board in Denver on a monthly basis and, in addition, the staff becomes involved in various legal matters which require prioritizing