GENERAL41687

• Permit No: M1992045
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 9/12/2005
• Doc Name: Return of answers to letters
• From: DMG
• To: James VanElla
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Gtr
STATE OF COLORADO
DIYISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
September 12, 2005
Ms. Deanna Van Ella Ms. Deanna Van Ella
P.O. Box 2221 180 Ln. 200 Bass Lake
Granite, CO 81228 and Angola, IN 46703
RE: Answers to letters of April 3Q and July 27, 2005, Permit M-1992-045.
Dear Mr. and Ms. Van Ella:
COLORADO
DIVISION OF
MINEBRALS
GEOLOGY
REC LAM ATION•MINING
SAFETY•SCIENCE
Bill Owens
Govemar
Russell George
Executive Direcor
Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
Natural Resource Trustee
I would like to try to answer the questions you raise in your previous letters to the Division of Minerals
and Geology (DMG) dated Apri130 and July 27, 2005. Division Director, Mr. Ron Cattany, provided me
your most recent hand written letter we received July 29, 2005. Also be aware that I directed Mr. Carl
Mount to personally handle your case upon receipt of April 30, 2005 letter. I understand that he has been
working with you in an attempt to resolve the issues you raise in your letters, a-mails and phone calls.
In the April 30th letter, you state that there are many different 110 Reclamation Permits that contain more
acreage than the Gold Basin Permit. You are correct. The Mined Land Reclamation Act leaves it to the
operator's discretion as to the acreage an operator wants included under their permit. By statute and
regulation, the Division cannot dictate how many acres the operator must include in a permit application.
(Unless it involves an illegal or a permitted mining activity, then the Mined Land Reciamation Board
(Board) has the authority to specify the amount of acres to be included in a permit or permit amendment.)
In order to facilitate the amendment process for your operation, we have offered to process a 110 Permit
Amendment for you and waive the amendment fee. I cannot dispute with you what an inspector may or
may not have told you in the past, by offering to process the amendment and not require the fee, it is my
hope it will provide some measure of relief.
As to the problem with the Emma Load Mine, the specialist at that time sent correspondence to the address
indicated in our official record. Once our Mr. Mount heard what was happening in this case, he took it
upon himself to change the address in our records even though, by rule, it is the operator's responsibility to
notify the DMG of any address change. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. I
understand that this particular situation with the Emma Load has been resolved. We appreciate your
providing us via a-mail your correct mailing address. It will aid us in terms of future correspondence with
you if you keep your correct contact information for your mine and the Emma Load Mine up-to-date with
the Division since I understand that you are not always at your Colorado address.
When we received no initial response to our correspondence concerning the Emma Load Mine NOI, (since
no contact was established) we initiated bond forfeiture proceedings as directed by the Mined Land
Office of Office of Colorado
Mined Land RErlamation Active and Inactive Mines Geological Survey