Laserfiche WebLink
June 17, 2002 <br />Page 2 of 2 Pages <br />In this regard: <br />1. The subtotals of mineral ownership and surface ownership should be equal; both being equal <br />to the area within the current permit boundary. Please explain the increase of 121.96 acres <br />from 7402.5 to 7524.46 in mineral and surface ownership (and, in turn, total acreage of <br />the permit). <br />2. Unless severed, areas of state surface ownership should equal areas of state mineral <br />ownership. Please explain or correct the 10.21-acre difference in state mineral and state <br />surface ownership figures. <br />3. The permitted area of disturbance was raised from 3810 to 3830 under Technical Revision 53 <br />with expansion of mining into Section 17. Please explain the increase in permitted <br />disturbance from 3830 to 4344.86 acres. Affected areas are equal to disturbed areas for <br />surface mines such as yours. <br />Please contact me if you have any questions. <br />Yours truly, <br />~ ~ w <br />yr G. Walker <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: Dan Hernandez, CDMG <br />file: C-81-019 RN-4 (electronic) C:\WPDOCS\ColowyoUtN-4 adequacy letter.doc <br />