PERMFILE122689

• Permit No: M1999083
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 9/15/1999
• Doc Name: FAX COVER ROTHER PIT APPLICATION FN M-99-083 DIV REVIEW OF CNTYS ADEQUACY RESPONSEJJ
• From: DMG
• To: CHEYENNE CO
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

z

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Deparhnenr of Natural Resources
1317 Sherman 51., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 8020]
Phone. [phone]
FAX: 111771 !f 32-8106
September I5, 1999
Mr. Rick Snook, County Administrator
Cheyenne County
P.O. Box 567
Cheyenne Wells, CO 80810
RE: Rother Pit (FILM-99-0831 Review of County adequacy response
Dear Mr. Snook:
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFE7Y
8il I O~rvens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
ErecuGve D~reclor
Michael B. Long
Division Director
On September 14, 1999, the Division received Cheyenne County's fax response to the initial adequacy review
made of the Rother Pit application. Because the Division considers the County's response to include distinct
changes in rather than clarifications of aspects of the application, the Counry's response is regarded az a Technical
Revision to the application and subject to the requirements of Rule I.8.1. Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 1.8.1
(6), this letter, th addition to being a review of the County's adequacy response, is also to serve az notice that a new
decision date of September 24, 1999 is set for the application in order that the public have 10 days in which to
review and comment on the revised application. In the event the County has not already done so, the County is also
directed to comply with the requ'vements of Rule 1.8.1 (2) and to add a copy of this adequacy response to the copy
of the application filed for public review with the County Cleric and/or Recorder and to provide the Division with
evidence, e.g. signed receipt, that this has been done.
Rule 1.6.2 (1) (e): The County's fax response contained evidence of the receipt of norices sent by the County
apparently to satisfy the requrements of this rule. The County is requested to send the green cards themselves.
While the Division's review of the County's response may be conducted, for efficiency's sake, using fax material,
the County should provide the original material for inclusion in the permit package. As for the adequacy of the
County's response, the following issues remain to be resolved:
EXHIBIT C, Rules 6.3.3 (k) and (I): The County's response does not include any attempt to respond to the
requirements of these sections of Rule 6.3.3.
The County should provide responses to the requirements of these sections with a revised Exhibit C.
EXHIBIT E-MAP, Rule 6.2.1: The revised Mine Plan Map submitted with the County's response does not
meet the requirements of this Rule in that it does not show the name of the applicant, the person preparing
it or the date prepared. (The maps previously submitted and assigned to meet the requirements of Exhibit
E do have most of this information.)
The County should submit revised versions of the Mine Plan Maps that meet the requirements of Rule
6.2.1