PERMFILE138492

• Permit No: M1999073
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/23/1999
• Doc Name: Fourth ADEQUACY LETTER
• From: DMG
• To: SUMMIT ENGINEERING CO
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman $t.. Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAr. [phone]
December 23,1999
Mr. Scott, Johnson
Summit Engineering Co.
1317 State Ave.
Alamosa, CO 8l 101
RE: Pit 1 (File M-99-073) Division's review of adequacy materials supplied since Division's December 3, 1999
adequacy letter
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The Division has reviewed the fax and other materials received since the Division's December 3, 1999 adequacy
letter and has identified the following adequacy concems:
Rules 1.6.2 (I)(e)(ii) and (f): Evidence of receipt or return of notices of the application by owners of
record of surface lands within 200 feet of the land to be affected by the mining operation has been supplied for all
identified owners except Jennifer Prince, owner of Lot 35. Since Ms. Prince did call me to inquire about the notice
she had received, she has obviously been properly noticed. The Division considers this adeauacv issue satisfied.
EXHIBIT C (Rule 6.3.3): A new Exhibit C has been supplied that draws together the scattered responses
to this Exhibit that previously existed in the permit application. The new Exhibit C satisfies the requirements of
Rule 6.3.3. The Division considers this adeauacv issue satisfied.
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•$AFETY
a~n ovens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Execulrve D~reuor
Michael 8. Long
Division D~recior
EXHIBIT D (Rule 6.3.4): A new Exhibit D has been supplied that also draws together the scattered
responses to the requvements of this Exhibit that previously existed in the permit application. Since the applicant
~ haz indicated acceptance of the minimum seeding plan outlined for the Division's reclamation cost estimate, only a
response to Rule 6.3.4(I)(c) (ii) haz not been supplied. It should be recognized, however, that the absence of
(Ut% fertilizer and mulch may lengthen the time needed for the vegetative cover to meet minimum reclamation
'~Ij performance standards and to secure releaze of the applicant's reclamation responsibility and bond. Still, this is
apparently the applicant's choice.
The applicant must state at what point in the mining plan the site will be seeded, i.e. in the spring, summer,
fall, etc.
i
~ EXHIBIT E (Rule 6.3.5(2)): A properly revised and acceptable Mine Plan Map has not yet been provided.
II v~ d The applicant must still provide a revised Mine Plan Map that addresses the concems expressed in the
Division's 11/3/99 adequacy review az well as fully meeting the requirements of this Exhibit.
>r EXHIBIT E (Rule 6.3.5(3)): A properly revised and acceptable Mine Plan Map has not yet been provided.
IIyS '~ The applicant must still provide a revised Mine Plan Map that addresses the concerns expressed in the
Division's I I/3/99 adequacy review as well az fully meeting the requirements of this Exhibit.
EXHIBIT G (Rule 6.3.7): The Division has received evidence of the intended purchase of Lot 36 by Evan
((~, B~ Melby but not of the completion of that purchaze.
The applicant should provide clear evidence of his right to enter upon Lot 36 for purposes of mining and
reclamation.
-~"TI= OF COLORADO
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII J ,~