PERMFILE110067

• Permit No: M1999073
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/3/1999
• Doc Name: Third Adequacy Response
• From: DMG
• To: SUMMIT ENGINEERING CO
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
131 7 Sherman SL. Room ? 1 5
Denver, Colorado 80?03
Phone: [phone]~3i6i
FAx. 1703) 93'8106
December 3, 1999
Mr. Scott E. Johnson
Summit Engineering Co.
1317 State Ave.
Alamosa, Co 8l 101
c-r_n -rr_ _
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII F
999
~q~,~~\`O~N~r~E\L~
FG~yo~,~~0
RE: Pit l (File M-99-073) Division's review of applicant's adequacy response
Deaz Mr. Johnson:
The Division's review of the fax material received on 72/1/99 which you supplied in response to the Division's
11/3/99 adequacy review of the application for Pit 1 has identified the remaining adequacy concems:
DIVISION O F
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
REC LAMA710N
MI NIN G•SAFETY
adl Owens
Cove.nor
Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
Michael a. Long
Division Director
Rules 1.6.2 (1) (e) (ii) and (f): To date, only evidence of notifying 4 of the owuers of record of surface
4 ~ lands within 200 feet of the land to be affected by the mining operation has been supplied. This evidence is in the
`,~~~ form of"green cards" indicating receipt of the notices. Excluding Evan Melby, there appear to be some 18 other
4,pC ~ owners of neazby property for which no evidence has been supplied of notices of the pit being mailed or received or
~~yt~ ~' being returned.
Ut"i The Division must have adequate evidence of the notices required by this title having been sent and either
p received or resumed in order to consider approval of [he application. (See Rule t.6.2 (]) (g).)
NOTE: In regard to EXI-IIBIT C, although requested to do so by the Division, you have not chosen to
provide a complete and revised Exhbit C addressing all the requvements of the Exhibit. As a result, responses to
ttiose requirements are now scattered over not just 3 but 4 ditTerent documents. Although you have verbally advised
the Division to ignore the material submitted with the original application, unless that material is included in the
application, where applicable, all the requirements of Exhibit C cannot be met. As a result, in the case of conflicting
responses to the various requirements of this exhibit, the Division will consider the most recent response as the
applicable/intended one. If that is ant agreeable, please provide written notice of that.
NOTE: Tn regard to EXHIBIT D, although requested to do so by the Division, you have not chosen to
provide a complete and revised Exhibit D addressing the requirements of the Exhibit. As a result, as in the case of
Exhibit C, responses to the requirements of this exhibit are scattered over several documents. Therefore, in the case
of conflicting responses to the requirements of this exhibit, the Division will consider the most recent response as
the applicable/intended one. If that is not agreeable, please provide written notice of that.
EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4 (c) (ii), (v) and (vi): The application and adequacy review response do not address
the requirements of these rules.
The applicant should respond to the requirements of these rules.
EXHIBIT E (Rule 6.3.5 (2)): A revised and acceptable Mine Plan Map has not been provided.
The applicant must provide a revised Mine Plan Map that addresses the concerns expressed in the
Division's I I/3/99 adequacy review.
Z
COLORADO
EXHIBIT E (Rule 6.3.5 (3)): A revised and acceptable Reclamation Plan blap has not been provided.
The applicant must provide a revised Reclamation Plan Map that addresses the concems expressed N the
Division's 11/3/99 adequacy review.