My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-08-06_REVISION - M1985129
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1985129
>
2002-08-06_REVISION - M1985129
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:43:12 PM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:49:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1985129
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/6/2002
Doc Name
Third Adequacy Letter
From
DMG
To
Elbert County
Type & Sequence
AM1
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.
/
4
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
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303)866-3567 <br />fAX: (303) 832-8106 <br />August 6, 2002 <br />Mr. Tim Sheridan <br />Elbert County Road and Bridge Department <br />809 Ute Ave. <br />Simla, CO. 80835 <br />Re: Third Adequacy Letter, Amendment #1 Application, Elbert County Pit, M-1985-129 <br />Dear Mr. Sheridan: <br />DIVISION OF <br />MINERALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />RECLAMATION <br />MINING•SAFET7 <br />Bill Owens <br />Governor <br />Greg E Watcher <br />Executive Director <br />Ronald W. Cattany <br />Acting Division Director <br />The Division received your latest response to previous adequacy letters. Since Elbert County <br />decided, in this response, to use the revised "documents in place of all previously submitted <br />documents except where stated" the DMG had to re-initiate it's technical review. As a result, <br />items which may have been previously addressed may need to be re-addressed. Following are <br />items of concern that are still outstanding: <br />Page 1 of the application form is incorrect. The proposed expansion application is an <br />amendment; not a conversion. Please make the appropriate correction and re-submit this <br />page. Also, you need to fill in the amount of existing permitted acreage and the change in <br />acreage. The Exhibits say that this is a 112 application. This is incorrect. This is an <br />amendment application. <br />2. The total acreage is noted as 100 acres. Where did the 100 acre number come from? If it <br />came from the new/revised permit boundary survey, there aze a couple of questions that <br />need answered: <br />a) The revised index map shows the proposed permit area as a dazk line described by <br />metes and bounds. Is this correct? <br />b) IF this is the correct permit boundazy, it appeazs to include a portion of county road 102 <br />and a portion of Elbert highway (as described, the south and east boundary lines are the <br />center lines of each road). If portions of these roads are included in the permit area, does <br />the County have a right to access these properties for mining and reclamation purposes <br />(see Rule 6.4.14)? <br />c) A 75 foot set-back area has been delineated on the revised Index map. Is this the <br />proposed affected land area? If so, this area must be mazked with monuments or <br />markers, pursuant to Rule 3.1.12. In addition, the affected ]and azea needs to be <br />identified on all the maps. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.