PERMFILE101468

• Permit No: M1999058
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 7/6/1999
• Doc Name: YULE QUARRY NEW 110 PERMIT APPLICATION BY SIERRA MINERALS FN M-99-058 DIVISION RESPONSE TO CITIZEN C
• From: DMG
• To: KIM AND STEVE MCINTYRE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

-, ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III
~ STATE OAF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1713 Sherman 51., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
DECEIVED
July z, 1999 ,lUl_ U 6 1999
r;,,r.erals & Geology
Kim and Steve McIntyre , , ,
1220 East Divot Dr.
Tempe AZ 85283
PUe~IC F OFFjCE
F~`E. _ I ~E COPY
S1 rE. t
v~,l,
0 ~'~2vw.
L\~
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SArETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Eveculiae Dveaor
6lichael B. Long
Division Director
Re: Yule Quarry, New 110 Permit Application by Sierra Minerals, File No. M-99-058, Division Response to
Citizen Complaint.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. McIntyre,
I have reviewed your letter of complaint regazding the application named above, and have discussed your
comments and objections with our agency's staff and legal counsel. In the following paragraphs I have arranged
the Division's replies to the points in your letter, in the same order as the numbered items in your fetter.
First, I wish to respond to a statement in your first paragraph, regazding the recent submittal by Sierra Minerals
Corporation (Sierra). This submittal was made in response to our preliminary adequacy review letter, which listed
numerous items which needed further clarification. Sierra's response, though substantial in overall number of
pages, actually included only the clarifications and modifications requested in my letter. It would be inaccurate,
however, to identify that submittal as consisting of substantial additional materials or changes.
1. The existing permit for the Yule Quarry site was originally issued to, and is still currently held by,
Colorado Yule Marble Company (CYMC). There is no individual's name associated with the permittee's name;
and we do not consider Mr. Loesby or any other individual employed by CYMC now or in the past, as being in any
way the permittee. If the application is approved and a permit is issued, the new permittee will be Sierra Minerals
Corp., not Rex Loesby. The Division does not consider him to be an operator/permittee presently in violation.
2. Your objection based on legal access being in question cites the incorrect statute. Your letter cites a statute
from the coal mining laws, and is not applicable for Construction Materials operations.
3. The point raised about the acquisition of damage agreements for all significant, permanent or man-made
structures within 200 feet of affected land, as being the only method of addressing that question, is incorrect. First,
the statute cited in your letter comes from the coal mining laws, which is not applicable here. Under applicable
statute, an option that is allowed in lieu of such a damage agreement, is for an applicant to submit an engineering
evaluation demonstrating that there will be no damage to the structures in question, pursuant to CRS 34-32.5-
115(4)(e). At the present time the applicant has, in this application, committed to not redisturbing or affecting
those areas where pre-existing, unstable conditions exist, until such time that adequate remedial work is performed
to ensure stability. ('Fhe Division may also require an engineering evaluation of certain areas in question.) Also, as
such remedial work is performed, the operator will be required to demonstrate that it is adequate to ensure stability,
or provide the appropriate damage agreement with you.