Laserfiche WebLink
~ ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />STATE OF COLOI~UU <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />DeNarlmenl of Natural Resources D <br />I J13 Sherman 51.. Room ? 15 ~N'/[~ ~`~~~~ <br />Dcnver, Colorado 80'03 v C I <br />Phone: 0031 8663567 RECEIVES PVe~~C F ~F~C~CE <br />rnx:13o71a7?-slob F/[LC. ~ ~LEC~p DEPARTMENT OF <br />MEMORANDUM OCT 21 1998 S/TF, ` }9 -~ ~' NATURAL <br />,~~ ~,' ~ ° RESOURCES <br />t Inerals 5 Geolo9Y "'~ i ~ <br />TO: BILL COHAl~!Y1~PC~ co ~ noer <br />FROM: BOB OSWALD ~L~ qN2 ~! )an,ess lrchheaa <br />DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1998 E~ecniweD~euor <br />RE: PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE FOR LEMOINE PIT, M-79-140 ""ch°e's. ~°nF <br />Division Director <br />Thank you for agreeing to preside as the Pre-hearing Conference Officer for the Lemoine Pit. <br />This will be scheduled, as we discussed, for 1:00 p.m. on 10/13/98, in the town of Hotchkiss. I <br />will send you the actual notice when I am sending them out to all parties, tomorrow or Monday. <br />This is a 112 amendment application, for which two timely written objections were received. <br />Attached is a packet of material to provide you with the background in this matter. It is <br />organized in tl7e following way: <br />1. First letter of objection (from Blankenship) received by DMG during the comment period. <br />2. Second letter of objection (from Stidham), received by DMG during the comment period. <br />3. Written objections received during informal conference (signed by group of residents). <br />4. Written response from county to those residents, received during informal conference. <br />5. Proposed Pre-hearing Conference Handout, summarizing the objections. <br />6. List of people who are parties to this matter at this time, either signers of the group letter <br />or attendees of the informal conference. <br />Second (final) adequacy concern letter from DMG to county (applicant). <br />The Division's decision date is Friday 1012198. I will be reviewing the adequacy responses I just <br />received from the county (in response to my letter, item #7 above). If all seems to be addressed <br />appropriately, there should be no need for the county to request an extension of that date, and we <br />will proceed with the Pre-hearing Conference, etc., as scheduled. <br />You will see that there is only one or two jurisdictional issues being raised here. As yet there <br />have been no objections withdrawn. <br />I will follow the Fax transmission of this material with a hard copy by mail. <br />Thanks again. Bob <br />a.\Ien7oam l .phi <br />