ENFORCE26864 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael Long 3 January 21, 1994 (federal land). Summit entered into an agreement with the BLM to purchase the clay in the NW1/4 NE1/4. As a part of that agreement, Summit was required to post a $10,000.00 bond with the BLM for reclamation and to agree to a reclamation plan with the BLM. Summit currently maintains two bonds of $10,000.00 each, in addition to the bond provided the MLRB. At the time of the adoption of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act there was no memorandum of understanding between the BLM and the MLRB regarding cooperative efforts on reclamation, and it was Summit's understanding that it was not required to obtain an MLRB Permit. However, in order to avoid any dispute, Summit applied for and obtained Permit No. M-77-322. Consequently, Summit has two separate bonds and reclamation requirements. The mining and reclamation in this area has taken place with the supervision and instruction of the BLM. Because Summit had determined to obtain a permit from the MLRB, it was decided to include a portion of the private land in the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 as a part of the affected area, for stockpile and storage purposes. The clay deposit in the NE1/4 NE1/4 had been mined out for the most part prior to 1977, and the inclusion of the NE1/4 NE1/4 in the affected area was primarily for stockpile and storage. Therefore, the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 was included in the legal description of the affected land for those purposes. In 1981, Summit had the access road and disturbed area surveyed, and has had the disturbed area surveyed on separate occasions since then. It has been very difficult to reconcile these surveys. The enclosed revised map is the most accurate. After Mr. Oehler's inspection Summit reviewed its permit file. Based on our subsequent surveys, the original map does not properly show the affected area in relation to the survey lines. we feel in part that this is due to inconsistencies between the topographic map, the actual topography and the survey monuments (the topographic map only reflects 40 foot contours). We have been unable to reconcile the survey with the topographic map and the actual features on the ground. We feel, however, that the enclosed map, which is based on actual survey and tied to a BLM brasscap, is accurate. The original topographical map submitted with the permit application would apparently be more accurate if the tear shaped area to be mined was twisted counterclockwise. As noted by Mr. Oehler, the access road is incorrectly shown on the map, and that inaccuracy reflects the confusion on the directions on the original map. The enclosed map accurately reflects the location of the access road and is based on the 1981 survey of the road.