GENERAL35219

• Permit No: M1978311
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Name: HANDWRITTEN NOTES
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY ov-cow
Department of Natural Resources ~ ,~'~_
/~ ~ '~
DenvehC080203Room 215 ~]~1 .~~~ ~~~~~-,: `r~G?'
Phone: [phone] R ~/ ~ ~e~b
FAX: [phone] ,p~ p 41993 M E M O.
Rov Rome.
Governor
DATE: December 31, 1992 Michael B.Long
' Oivrswn Duector
T0: Jim Stevens
~~~
FROM: Tom Gillis~DG'~
RE: n ecalculation & Stips,!Files M-78-311 d
~78-342. ~ ~~ D ~„ '~~ .~-~~
Bot((((((h e~ were inspected onTj"`1"2/29/92 and both performance bonds
recalculated on 12/30/92. Both sites had significantly less
area disturbed and facilities on site than what was assumed to
be the case based on information contained in the permit files,
especially in the case of the Rawkeye Mine (M-78-311) which
does not appear to have been touched for a few decades. The
final bond amounts are both below the current amounts held by
the Division, as shown below:
ORIGINAL INITIAL RECALC. FINAL RECALC.
M-78-311: $ 5,000.00 $ 17,639.00 $ 2,895.00
M-78-342: $ 5,000.00 $ 13,511.00 $ 4,957.00
I have sent the new operator, David Blake of Blake Mining Co.,
copies of the inspection reports, revised bond worksheets, and a
cover letter. I told Mr. Blake we could base the current bond
amounts on the existing disturbance and add a stipulation to the
permits that the bonds will need to be recalculated before the
mine can go active or any new disturbances are created. I made
an effort to fill out the appropriate coding forms (copies are
enclosed), however you should take a look at them as I am a
little rusty on coding form preparation. Please let me know if
this approach is appropriate and if there is anything elso I
need to do to finish following through on these permit actions.