REV95058 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jjlld;l'~4_ I5:!. .:_~:;i E-':.~I FF'EIF.'ICH. E'oi~~. F.^-~5E 02 • • Evan Freirich Telephone The Broadway Suites 303-4'44-3029 1942 Broadway, Suite 309 Facsimile Boulder, Colorado 80302 303-938-3774 September 17, 1992 Bill York-Fern Mined Land Reclamation Division 1313 Sherman 215 Aenver, CO 80203 Gold Hill Mining COM, Inc Dear Mr. York-Fern: BY FAX AHD MAIL I am in receipt o£ the application for a technical revision of August 17, 1992 by Colina oro Moro (COM) for the Cash Mill and mine. The permittee has requested that it be able to process ore so long as it meets with the ore guidelines in the permit. These guidelines were established to limit the type of ore which can be processed since the mill was only designed to mill this type of ore and the reclamation plan was designed to handle tailings from this type of processed ore. I am requesting that the application be denied or modified on the following grounds: 1. The reclamation and mining plans in the permit are changed significantly by introduction of an alternate ore supply. For instance, the mining plan may only be 20~ complete when the settling pond is full and ready to be reclaimed. Are they then required to reclaim that partially mined area even though is impractical or even inadvisable at that point. in addition, if the development of onsite ore sources is going as planned and offsite ore is introduced to the site, then there may not be a sufficient reclamation bond to handle all of the disturbed area. The amount of the reclamation bond must factor in a worst case scenario based upon a variety of possible source scenarios. In addition, because the introduction of offsite ore will have a significant effect on the reclamation plan the application is by definition an amendment and should be denied as requesting a technical revision.