Laserfiche WebLink
i~ <br />'o• <br />FLATIRON <br />sii iiiiiiiiniii iii <br />999 <br />PAVING COMPANY <br />POST OFFICE BO% Z29, BOULDER, COLORADO 80306 • PHONE: (303) 443.9400 <br />December 31, 1980 <br />RECEIVED <br />Mr. Michael S. Savage <br />Reclamation specialist <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />1313 Sherman Street, 4th Floor <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Dear Mike: <br />JAN ~- 2 ?;;~1 <br />T111_~D LAND RECLAMATION`?`.C~O~eA~L~'e <br />:cotg ~, OF tuauRAL RaawC~ <br />Your December 24 letter caused surprise both for the information it contained and <br />for its accusatory tone. <br />You deal with two issues which I will deal with separately. First, BLM seems to <br />have given you a different interpretation of their stance on changes in the <br />ranch road/haul road intersecticsi than they gave us. 7b us the statement that <br />there was "no problan with the road the way it was" was interpreted to mean that <br />they thought that the intersection as instructed did not present a problem and <br />that it was not necessary (or desireable) to change it. Walden Coal Company will <br />regrade the road in question if both M[.AB and BLM are in agreement. Please note, <br />however, that your Dec~nber 24 letter arrived at my office while I was sick <br />(Dec~nber 29 and 30) and was not opened until Decanber 31. Grading may not <br />be acccmg~lished by January 2. <br />Se~ndly, Walden Coal will be glad to submit a technical revision (under interim <br />regulations) or minor revision (under permanent program) concerning the elimina- <br />tion of the one culvert at the intersection of County Road 19 and the Bourg haul <br />road. Our letter to BIM requesting their decision about this culvert was mailed <br />Octnber 7. BMA's response to this letter was dated Deoe~rber 12• My letter to <br />you summarizing their response was dated DecornUer 15. It was apparently sent the <br />day we received the BI,NI letter although it did not meet your November 30 deadline. <br />Your December 24 letter seemed to indicate that we were withholding information. <br />In our phone ~nversation today you indicated that you had xec.~eived my December 15 <br />letter. <br />Mike, I thought that nR' December 15 letter provided the information you needed. <br />We are in~rporating the changes in our ne~a permit applicaticm, which we hope to <br />submit shortly. Haaever, during our ~nversation today you indicated that you also <br />need a request for a technical revision to be approved as a "no ~mrent" revision <br />by the MLRB at its January meeting. Please accept this letter and my December 15 <br />letter as requests for a technical revision. Enclosed are the letter from BIM <br />and a mpy of my December 15 letter, the two being virtually identical. Please <br />