Laserfiche WebLink
'~G'N~/ <br />es ~; -~-~5, ~b ~1 <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.com <br />July 7, zoos RECEIVED <br />Erica S. Crosby ~ ~~ ~ ZQ~s <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources ~i~ision~t~Pliirmcets'eni~6e~lobY <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Deriver, Colorado-80203 - "~ -~ `~- ` - - `-- _-` . _ ~- - <br />RE: King ylountain Gravel, ,LLC; King Mountain Sand and Gravel Mine; <br />File 1978-314; Reconsideration of Cor~yersion Application Approval; <br />Response to Objector's Letters J <br />Dear Ms. Crosby <br />It.is the position of King Mountain that the only issue that is in need of being addressed <br />by the Division and the Colorado Mined Land ReGamation Board. (CMLRB) is the <br />acceptance of-the $327,000 Letter of Credit financal warrant' 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 to the main issue, the acceptance of the financial <br />warranty. , <br />Concerning the financial warranty issue, as you know, the original letter of credit was <br />submitted before the deadline but not accepted by staff due to some format problems. <br />By the time the problems were corrected and the letter of credit was submitted in proper <br />format, the deadline had passed: However, staff did accept the financial warranty as <br />complete. It appears to us that the staff and the CMLRB simply need to focus on this <br />issue and to determine that the warranty is acceptable, even though it was past the <br />deadline _ • - - - -- - - - <br />Our response to the objections raised in the opponents letters fall into two main <br />categories: <br />• Issues that are not regulated by the DMG and the CMLRB under State Rules and <br />Regulations; and <br />• Issues that have already been addressed and for which no new information is <br />supplied by opponents that would censtitute sufficient cause to reopen the entire <br />case ~ <br />The three. objections letters, at least_one of which was received after the required <br />deadline, are almost duplicates df one another, in content. Therefore, we will address <br />the issues presented based upon the format of the letter submitted by Hogan and <br />Hanson. <br />