My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV97689
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV97689
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:21:59 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:11:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
9/14/1993
Doc Name
MID TERM REVIEW 2N RESPONSE SOUTHFIELD MINE C-81-014
From
DMG
To
EFCI
Type & Sequence
MT2
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.
/
6
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
fP(lll ia' 1Pc Vr Ptal CO r~~PO»!-lEaP<„ <br />~` <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIII I;. <br />STATE OF COLORADCU <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />13 i 3 Sherman SI., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 8553557 <br />FA%: (3031 832-81 05 <br />September 14, 1993 <br />Attn: Al Weaver <br />EFCI <br />P.O. Box 449 <br />Florence, CO 81226 <br />Re: Mid-term Review: 2nd response <br />Southfield Mine (C-81-014) <br />Dear Mr. Weaver: <br />pF' COQ <br />Nis- b <br />. p <br />r. <br />Roy Romer <br />G mernnr <br />Mrchael B Lnng <br />Division Director <br />The Division has reviewed your technical revision (TR 15) adequacy <br />response in addressing Mid-term review issues and has the following <br />comments. Comments are listed in the numbering sequence of the <br />Mid-term review. <br />Items one through six: Satisfied. Thank you for your responses. <br />Item #7: Thank you for your draft submittal of letters to the <br />landowners. Please forward signed copies as soon as possible per <br />your letter dated April 9, 1993. <br />Items 8 through 10: Satisfied. Thank you for your reply. <br />Item # 11: This issue is im need of resolution. In consultation <br />with the State Engineer's Office, your file indicated that there <br />were no petitions for further inquiry or consideration filed per <br />the State Engineer's Office request, dated July 22, 1991. The <br />letter received from Delaney and Balcomb, addressed to EFCI and <br />forwarded to the Division; dated March 16, 1992 does not constitute <br />a valid response to the State Engineer's Office. Two items must be <br />resolved before the Division can clear this item from the Mid-term <br />Review. These are: one, an augmentation plan must be presented for <br />the loss of water due to evaporation on the 1.1 acre pond; and two, <br />since the "well" falls within 600 feet from two other wells, one a <br />fee well and one for domestic use, that a letter waiving a hearing <br />by the State Engineer's Administrative Officer by the owners of the <br />said wells, must be submitted to the State Engineer's Office. Upon <br />receipt of the letters, which could also be a legal agreement <br />reached by EFCI and the well owners concerning damage to well water <br />loss, etc., the State Engineer's Office will reconsider the <br />application. The Division is concerned that the continued <br />withdrawal of state waters from the mine without a permit to do so, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.