REV09229

• Permit No: M1977317
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 12/3/1996
• Doc Name: CEDARWOOD CLAY PIT M-77-317 PROPOSED TR 1 TO ADD ACREAGE TO THE REDUCED 110 PERMIT AREA
• From: DMG
• To: SUMMIT BRICK AND TILE
• Type & Sequence: TR1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources I~~~~
1313 Sherman St., Roam 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FA%:13031 832 8106
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
December 3, 1996 Ro Romer
Y
Governor
Mr. Lloyd V. "Buck" Barnh
Summit Brick and Tile
212 W. 13th
Pueblo, CO 81003
RE: Cedarwood Clay Pit
Revision 1 to add acreage
Dear Mr. Buckhart:
art, Consultant for Iames S. LOChheac
Executive Direebr
Michael B Long
Division Direuor
(Permit M-77-317) Proposed Technical
to the reduced 110 permit area
As a result of the recent approval, ie. on 11/26/96, of Summit
Brick and Tile's request for a partial release of reclamation
responsibility and bond for the Cedarwood Clay Pit, the permit area
for the pit was reduced by 3.77 acres (your figure). As of that
date, the Division could then consider proposed Technical Revision
1 which was to add approximately 3.6 or so acres to the reduced 110
permit area. Although proposed Technical Revision 1 was received by
the Division on 9/11/96 and Summit Brick was entitled to a decision
on 10/11/96, you were advised by phone on 9/17/96 that such a
proposal was not acceptable until the existing permit area had been
reduced and that in order to avoid a denial of the technical
revision on 10/11/96, Summit Brick should waive their right to a
decision on that date. Such a waiver was received by the Division
on 9/19/96.
During our phone conversation on 9/17/96 (according to my notes),
I indicated to you that I would discuss with Bruce Humphries, my
supervisor, whether the Division could allow this proposal to add
acreage to the Cedarwood Clay Pit to proceed as a TR. If you will
review my inspection report of 5/9/96, while I can only agree that
the use of a technical revision for this purpose would be the
easiest and most economical way, I did not guarantee that such a
proposal would be accepted as a technical revision as opposed to an
"amendment". How could I when the actual proposal was yet to be
made?
I have now discussed the matter with Bruce and it is his
recommendation that the proposal only be considered by the Division
if submitted in the form of a replacement application that includes
what remains of the original 110 permit area together with the new
area to the west and north. It is Bruce's feeling that the
proposal .does not qualify as a technical revision since it involves
adding acreage to the permit area and, since 110 amendments are not