PERMFILE121076

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

• ~ w A~~ ~ •
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY 999 ~ ~~
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St.. Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAx: [phone]
December 3, 1999
Mr. Scott E. Johnson
Summit Engineering Co.
1317 State Ave.
Alamosa, CO 81101
RE: Pit l (File M-99-073) Division's review of applicant's adequacy response
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The Division's review of the fax material received on 122/99 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 OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
R E C L A M A T I O N
MINING•SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Rules 1.6.2 (I) (e) (ii) and (f): To date, only evidence of notifying 4 of the owners of record of surface
lands within 200 feet of the land to be affected by the mining operation has been supplied. This evidence is in [he
form of"green cazds" indicating receipt of the notices. Excluding Evan Melby, there appear to be some 18 other
owners of nearby property for which no evidence has been supplied of notices of the pit being mailed or received or
being retttrtted.
The Division must have adequate evidence of the notices required by this rule having been sent and either
received or re[umed in order [o consider approval of the application. (See Rule 1.62 (I) (g).)
NOTE: in regard to EXHIBIT C, although requested to do so by the Division, you have not chosen to
provide a complete and revised Exhibit C addressing all the requvements of the Exhibit. As a result, responses to
those requirements are now scattered over not just 3 bu[ 4 different 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 not agreeable, please provide written notice of that.
NOTE: !n 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 Ute 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 roles.
The applicant should respond to the requirements of these roles.
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 concems expressed in the
Division's 11/3/99 adequacy review.
EXHIBIT E (Rule 6.3.5 (3)): A revised and acceptable Reclamation Plan Map has not been provided.
The applicant must provide a revised Reclamation Plan Map [hat addresses the concems expressed in the
Division's l l/3/99 adequacy review.