REV96541

• Permit No: M1989030
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 11/19/1997
• Doc Name: ZADRA PIT PN M-89-030 AMENDMENT MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR 112 CONVERSION APPLICATION AND SECOND ADEQUA
• From: DMG
• To: SAN MIGUEL CNTY RD AND BRIDGE DEPT
• Type & Sequence: CN1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII •
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department o(halural Resources
1113 Sherman S'.., Room 215
Dem-er, ColoraAo 80203
Phone: U03) 8hb~3587
FAX: [phone]-E1106
R~rFIVED
DENVER OFFICE
PUBLIC FILE COPY
FILE: i1~-89-o3a
S1TE:_~rtpi~A- n~T-
laNl~StaN Ft~
~~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Nuv ~ q 1997
November 17, 1997 Divislcn ui ~~~~nelau a Geology
Mike Horner
San Mig~3el County Road and Bridge Dept.
P.O. Boa: 426
ROy Romer
Governor
James 5. Lochhead
Executive Direcmr
NolwooEi CO 81423 h,icnae~ g. Long
Division Director
Re: Zadra Pit, Permit No. M-89-030, Amendment Materials Submitted for 1 12 Conversion
Application, and Second Adequacy Review.
Dear Mr Horner,
I have reviewed the materials regarding the above-named application, as submitted recently on
your beh.3lf by Ken Herman. There are t~vo main portions of this response letter, the explanation
of the "amendment" designation and the newest adequacy review.
First, the conversion application which was initially received and reviewed, has been modified to
the extent that there are an additional ten acres proposed to be added. This will increase the size
of the permit to fifty acres. lfyou refer to Construction Materials Rule 1.I(6), you will see that
any chan;;e to a permit or an application which increases its acreage is to be considered an
amendmEnt. Rule 1.6.6 further states that if the change to the application fits the definition of
amendlne:nt, the operator must publish a new notice and mail new notices to all affected parties,
and all tilneframes will begin anew. I have noted that there are no other substantial changes to
what I have already reviewed, and I do not believe that the Division's decision will have to wait
longer th.3n the expiration of the public comment period. Therefore, I urge you to commence
immediately with the republication of the four notices, and sending of individual landowner and
agency n~3tices again. The proof of publishing, sending, delivering, etc. are required again also.
(The language in the prior notice maybe modified. The public comment period for the notice
should be: calculated to expire at the close of business on the twentieth day after the last of the
four publications.)
Second, the following items are the adequacy comments from the review of the recent submittal.
They are arranged in order of portion of the application form or exhibit to which they pertain.
Application Form Item 3 -Permitted Acreage
According to our records, the existing acreage is 9 acres, not 10 acres (to be a 110 permit, it must
be below ]0 anyway). If you intend to enlarge the permit to 50 acres total, then I will modify the
form to reflect that you are proposing to add 41 acres to the existing 9. Please let me know if that
is not correct. (Our Denver office manually made a similar correction to your original conversion