Laserfiche WebLink
r~r-~~l~r <br />MA1Z 0 6 2006 <br />Dlvison or wm~..•~r>~W i;edoav <br />March 3, 2006 <br />Mr. Kent Gorham <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Peak Project Management, LLC <br />34115 Coin/ Road 20.8 <br />Trinidad, CO 81082 <br />Telephone/Fax: (779) 846.4975 <br />Cell: {719) 859-07 ~ 7 <br />email: ~OnUIOMpSO11~Sen80nIGS.O~g <br />Re: New Elk Mine Pemut No.: C-81-012 <br />Technical Revision 48 <br />Dear Mr. Gorham: <br />Pages 2.05-44a, 45, 46, 50 & 51 of the New Elk permit have been revised. A section <br />addressing retention of structures, ponds and roads to support post-mining land use has <br />been added to page 2.05-45. References to retention of structures and roads for post <br />mining uses have been removed from pages 2.05-46, 50 and 51 to avoid potential <br />confusion. <br />Maps 15 and 16 have been revised to show structures, ponds, and culverts and roads <br />being retained for post mining land use. Three copies of the text sent to you via <br />facsimile, are also enclosed. <br />Exhibit 28, page 108 lists the sewage treatrnent tank with dimensions of 8.5' x 5.5' x 96'. <br />I think a horizontal dimension of 10' x 12', as marked on the surface with steel rail posts <br />to prevent equipment from traveling over the tank, is more accurate: Worst case, a full <br />vault would hold 1,600 gallons of sludge. The disposal costs also seem high. As we <br />discussed during your February inspection, the Southfield mine recently decommissioned <br />a similar vault with substantially lower disposal fees. <br />S~rely> <br />e`n <br />Ron Thompson <br />