REP06001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Depanmem of Nawral Resources ~~~~ 1313 Sherman 51.. Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (3071 8683567 FA%: (3031 832-8106 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Roy ROmer Governor lames 5. Lochhead July 3, 1997 E.ecul,ve Dtreao~ Michael B. Long Division Dneaor Mr. Charles Kinney, Esq. 5826 Presley Way Oakland, CA 94618 RE: File No. M-94-1 15, Orion Pit Application Dear Mr. Kinney: This letter is in response to your two letters dated June 13 and June 17, 1997 that were received by the Division on June 19 and June 20, respectively. The Division was not incorrect in any of the statements made in Ms. Laverne Lemay's June 4, 1997 correspondence to Mr. Stephen Kinney. The Division's June 4, 19971etter does not contain the word "new" as asserted in your letter. As a matter of clarification, however, the term "new" in reference to an application typically refers to an application for a proposed mining operation as opposed to a previously existing mining operation. An application associated with a previously existing operation can be termed either a "conversion application", "amendment application", or "technical revision application", depending on the permitting circumstances. Also, an application for a proposed operation can be amended or revised during the review process, in which case the term "amended application" or "revised application" is used. The Division did receive an incomplete application for the proposed Orion Pit on October 27, 1994. This application was not deemed complete until June 3, 1997. Your comment asserting that the Division "must have lost or misplaced" the Exhibit R information is speculation. The applicant may have failed to send the information to the Division. The fact remains, however that there is no evidence contained in the Division's files indicating that the Exhibit R information for the Orion Pit application was received prior to June 3, 1997. In regard to your question that "If Exh. R was still missing, why did it take the DMG so long to follow- up on this application?", the truth is that the applicant, not the Division, was responsible for following- up on the Division's January 3, 1995 incompleteness letter by providing the missing Exhibit R information to the Division. The Division fulfilled it's application completeness review responsibility in a timely manner by responding in seven l71 calendar days lour January 3, 1995 correspondence) to the applicant's December 23, 1 994 correspondence (received by the Division on December 27, 00185 1