My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE29583
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE29583
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:36:34 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:18:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1992045
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
9/12/2005
Doc Name
Regarding Inspection Report
From
James VanElla
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
m•~g93~o~15 <br />tuSD <br />Ull7~ CI/1tGG e/JP•CIIJ?/11,CL ~~ 1 ~~~GIi <br />P.O. Box 2221 <br />Granite, Colorado 81228 <br />260-G68-0362 <br />~~~~~~ i <br />SEP 1 2 2005 <br />September 9, 2005 <br />~i71s190 t <br />Division of Mineral and Geology <br />Dept. of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 15 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Bruce Humphries: <br />After rereading again Erica Crosby's Mineral Program Inspection Report <br />dating 9-27-04 we feel we are entitled to a correction report on this <br />inspection! <br />1. She noted that we should amend the 110(2) permit application to <br />properly reflect the permit area of 2.8 acres. We were cheated out of 9.9 <br />acres that other miners got before and after we applied for our permit. We <br />have as yet to find out why we didn't get 9.9 acres! We paid $875.00 with a <br />yearly assessment fee of $225.00 since Jim Dilley's inspection which at that <br />time he noted a change from $75.00 to $225.00 in 8-12-98. We feel we <br />only got 2.8 acres because of the an inexperienced employee of the DMG <br />when we received our permit in 1992. Also she fail to exclude the roads <br />that existed pre-law or pre permit, which does not make us in violation on a <br />2.8 acre permit. She also stated the amendment must be received by the <br />DMG on or before November 6, 2004 even though at that time there was not <br />proper paper work to do an amendment. <br />2. She also noted the maintenance building and the reclamation cost. If <br />she would had bothered to read Jim Dilley's report he should have noted <br />the building was not in the effective area as Dtlley and us discussed. <br />3. She also noted the creation and reclamation of the waste pile. Let it be <br />noted that on such a small amount of acreage to work in, 1.3 acres, it is <br />impossible to be able to wash 70, 000 tons of gravel per year and keep the <br />tailings and rockfrom the discharge reclaimed with an ongoing operation. <br />4. She wanted documentation that we have water rights. This is after 13 <br />years of inspections by other specialists! <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.