Laserfiche WebLink
"c,N~~ <br />' - e.S~C; ~'as~ c.bn1 <br />~~ Banks and Gesso, LLC ~ 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 <br />^^ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 <br />(303)274-4277 <br />' Fax (303) 274-8329 <br />' www.banksandgesso.cam <br />~~~' T 2006 RECEIVED <br />Erica S. Crosby ~! L f. O <br />Ernironmental Arotertiion Specialist Y"J~ <br />Division of Minerals and Geobgy <br />Department of Natural Resouroes ~tvle[onstAiNxaceb+A~Ass~l <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Derive% Colo ado~802!%i. "... _ ,.- . -., . - ._ . _ _ _. _ -~.. ~ , _ ....-. - - - - <br />RE: King ytourrtaln.Gravel, ,LLC; King Mountain Sand and Gravel Mine; <br />File 1978-374; Recwraiideratlon o! CaJilmn~ion AppNcaN~ Approval; <br />Response to f~jector'a Letters r/ <br />Dear Ms. Crosby: <br />It.is the position of IGrtg MOUnCain that the only issue that is in need of being addressed <br />by the Division and.the Colorado Mined Land Redamatian Board.(CMLRB) is the <br />acceptance of the $327.000 Letter of t',redit ful8ndal warrarrly that was submitted by <br />King Mountain. All objections are based upon some fabricated 'needs' to open up the <br />entire case and are not relevant tD the min issue, the acceptance of the financial <br />warranty. ~ <br />Caru:emir~ the financial wartanty issue, as you know, the original letter of credK was <br />submitted before the deadline but not ar:Cepted by staff due to some format problems. <br />BY the time the problems were corrected and the letter of aedit was submitted in proper <br />torrrurt, the deadline had passed: However, staff did accept the finanaal warranty as <br />complete. tt appears to us tlmt the staff and the CMLRB sirtrply need to focus on this <br />issue and to determine that the warranty is aooeptabte, even though R was past the <br />deadline: - - ~ --- <br />Our response to the objections raised in the opponent's letters tntl into two min <br />categories: -. - <br />Issues thaE are not regulated bl/ tfre DMG and the CMLRB under State Rules and <br />Reputations; and <br />Issues that have already been addressed and for whidf no new information is <br />supplied by opportenffi that would oarrstiWte suffiaerrt cause to reopen the entire <br />' ~~ '. ~ <br />.The three. objections letters, at leastone of which was received after the required . <br />deadline,. are almost duplicates of orre another, in carrhent. Therefore, we will address <br />the issues preserrtird based upon the format of fhe letter submitted by Hogan and <br />Hanson. <br />