Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />iii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii • <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Deparlmem o(Nalural Resources <br />1313 Shermon SL, Room ?15 <br />Denver, Colorado 80?03 <br />Phone: (3071 855-355: <br />PAX:13U!)83?-8105 <br />January 25, 2000 <br />Mr. Dennis E. Staebell <br />L.G. Everist Inc. <br />Mountain Division <br />7321 E. 88'" Ave. Suite 200 <br />Henderson, CO 80640 <br />F u,~ yUUh GOkRESPONUEr:UEF1LE <br />RE: Technical Adequacy Review of Technical Revision #004 to Permit No. #M-96-049, Maryland Creek Ranch <br />Dear Mr. Staebell, <br />DIVISION O F <br />MINERALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />RECLAMATION <br />MINING•SAFETY <br />B~II Owens <br />Governor <br />Greg E. Walther <br />Execalive Direcor <br />Michael 8. Lang <br />Div,sion Director <br />Upon review of the technical revision to Permit No. #M-96-049, Maryland Creek Ranch, submitted January 19, the <br />Division requires a small written clarification prior to reviewing this application for approval. In the cover letter, it is <br />stated that [he purpose of this technical revision is to change the mining and reclamation plan such that `we must strip <br />and open up more azea at one time.' This would seem to indicate that this submittal has been correctly filed as a <br />Technical Revision to the permit. However, earlier in this cover letter, you stated that you were requesting a technical <br />revision to the mining plan 'which affects the [oral disturbed acres within the permi«ed area.' <br />Would you please clarify, in writing, that neither the effected area of 145 acres, or total permitted area of 216 acres, is <br />being increased? It appears from the documenu submitted that you are only increasing the [oral maximum disturbed area <br />at one time from 40 acres to 58 acres, but we would like an explicit distinction made, so as to avoid any confusion. <br />Upon receipt of this clarification, the Division will proceed with a review of this submittal and a re-evaluation of any <br />changes to [he financial warranty which may be necessary. If this remains a Technical Revision, then the decision due <br />date of February 18, 2000, applies, and all issues raised by our technical adequacy reviews must be resolved by [his date <br />in order for the submittal to be approved, unless an extension to [he due date is requested by the Operator. if this becomes <br />an Amendment, then [he due date will be re-set for March 20, 2000, if the advertising o(the item does not automatically <br />push the comment period farther into [he future. <br />If you have any Further question, feel free to contact me at (303) 866-4924. <br />Sincerely, ,~~// ~/~ / <br />~'J~ - t~R~i/ <br />Christina L. Kamnikaz, <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Cc: Carl B. Mount, DMG <br />