Laserfiche WebLink
2920 (;edar Heights Drive <br />Colorado Springs, CO 80904 <br />(719)685-4479 <br />e-mail glacier@flii.cuut <br />1 June 2003 '~' <br />Division of Minerals and Geology / <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />Mr. James Diilie <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />1313 Shetman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-:1567 <br />~~x r~ a~u~~`i ~sd~t~s~2 <br />Dear Mr. Dillie <br />Thank you for your technical review of my Glacier Peak Mining Permit Application, M-2003-030.° <br />I have attached the items to cover the material identified by your review. This should teach you in <br />time to be considered on 4 June. Ilowever, I do not want our operation jeopardized if there is any <br />question that needs to be covered before the review takes place please call me so I can request an <br />extension. <br />1 understand a second application will be necessary for my northern claims and that an annual fee will <br />be charged fot them. As a result, I will not include Qui-Buc 2 in this permit application. I will include <br />the four arnrthem claims only. Twill continue Co prospect as necessary to maintain the validity of the <br />northern. claitns as this is required for annual assessment work. I did file a notice of intuit with the <br />Forest Service three years ago..I revised it this year to add our two new claims, Elk Hom and Wolf <br />Fang. I will contact Mr Barry Posey as uadicatcd. Thank you. <br />Our original proposal indicated a time line through 2018 with final reclamation completed on Qui-Buc <br />No. 2 that year. Total disturbance over the 15 years was projected to be slightly under 3 acres. This <br />included equipment footprints, storage areas, some reclamation of currently disturbed areas, and <br />prospecting, On average, we would disturb 1/5 of ati acre per year. After the first year, earh site is <br />reclaimed until at the end of 2018, we would have reclaimed and reseeded our final parcel. As a result <br />of reruuving Qui-Buc No. 2 this would reduce the total disturbed azea by 2/5 of an acre. Total <br />disturbed and reclaimed areas for this permit would now be 2.6 acres, I would leave it at 3 acres. I <br />would plan on reclaiming additional disturbed areas neaz our proposed excavation sites, particulazly on <br />the Smoky hawk where most of 3 acres is currently disturbed. I Uelicve a fair amount ofreclamation <br />should, be planned at 1/5 acre per year. <br />In reference to information from the Forest Service regarding the difference in the Operations Plan and <br />this application. My first application before the first technical review included eight of my nine <br />claims. I first pulled Qui-Buc No. 3, Qui-Buc No. 8, and The Cut Dog from the rniuing permit bconuse <br />the first technical review said 1 had, to have permission from the land owner to mine on the private land <br />which Qui-Buc No. 8 overlaps in the north east, I was only proposing to prospect and had no intent of <br />ever minu]g or prospecting on the private land. It made sense to pull these claims from the permit <br />process as I did not plan on mining on them, only prospecting. I believe all my claims still need to be <br />covered in the Operations Plan so the Forest Service knows what I am doing. I will contact them and <br />see what they need. <br />