PERMFILE139251

• Permit No: M2005012
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 6/20/2005
• Doc Name: receipt of objection letter
• From: Law Offices of Cashen Cheney and Thomas
• To: dmg
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
D(VISfON OF MINERALS AND
Department of Natural Resources
]373 Sherman St., Room 275
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
June 13, 2005
Robert Thomas
Law Offices of Cashen,
P.O. Box 387
t.' Y LI':~)~t:.

Cheney and Thomas
~ivis/eq ~ ~~ 2 ~ ZQ~J
/ M74er8Js dqr Ce%bY
COLORADO
DIVISION O F
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
0.ECLANATION•M INING
SAFETY•SCIENCE
Bill Owens
Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
Montrose, Colorado 1402 // ~~ "
Re: Gray Pit No. 2, Application Number M-2005-012, Receipt of Objection Letter.
Dear Mr. Thomas:
The Division of Minerals and Geology has received by fax and original copy a timely objection to
the above referenced application from Cashen, Cheney and Thomas on behalf of Lazy A
Corporation. Lazy A is filing an objection to the application based on a question over the
proposed access point from the mine site to Migue! Road in Montrose County.
As part of the objection, it is noted that Lazy A has concerns over safety factors, road use and
intent of the permit applicant to construct and use the proposed truck route. It is the Division's
position that safety factors and road use issues other than use of the road as access for the
proposed mining operation and reclamation as to that road do not fall underjurisdiction of the
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) and therefore cannot be considered as part of
the reclamation permit application process.
As for the intent issue, the Division is well aware of the litigation over the previous proposed
(green gate) access road. The original permit application was pulled because of legal issues
concerning the proposed site access (green gate) which have not been resolved. According to
2 CCR 407-4, Rule 1.4.1(9), an application must be approved or denied within 365 days of the
filing date. The applicant withdrew the previous application, The applicant has resubmitted a
new permit application and proposed an access point from the other end of the property to in
fact stay away from the legal issues still under litigation. It clearly states in the application that
the proposed access is from Miguel Road. The Division can find no reference to Lazy A having
interest within 200 feet or land adjacent to the proposed access route. If this finding is in error,
please provide appropriate documentation that your client has structures, a surface or mineral
interest within 200 feet of the newly proposed affected area of the access road.
The application also states that the access point under litigation could "possibly" be used at a
future date, but only if litigation settles the issue in the applicant's favor. If thaf does occur, the
change in access would be considered an amendment to an approved permit. The permitee
would thus be required to follow the requirements of 2 CCR 407-4, Rule 1.10.1. This Rule
provides that amendments are to be reviewed by the Board in the same manner as a new
permit application including the requirements for public and adjacent landowner notifications of
Office of Office of Colorado