Laserfiche WebLink
51f~1 t Ur C:ULURADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br /> <br />Depattmem of Natural Resources ~J <br />V <br />I I I J Sherman 51.. Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80]03 D I v 15 1 0 N <br />phone: IJDJ1 sees-JSe~ <br />FAX: 1J0718Jr•8f 06 ~ MEMORANDUM M ! N E ltd <br />&~ <br /> GEOLO <br />DATE: August l 8, 1999 f1 E C l A N A T <br /> NIN ING•SAf <br />FROM: Tom Kaldenbach Tra't^ ~p~ <br /> ein os..m <br />Gowrna <br />TO: Dan Hernandez Goa E. WakMr <br /> E1scY11V~ DirK}p <br /> <br />RE: <br />Hayden Gulch Mine. Permit no. C-80-003 MithaN 8. laq <br />Df.,,,on anceo. <br /> Regulatory status of ponds HG-8 and 003 since the Phase Il/III partial <br /> bond release of June 1999 <br />I have concluded that as a result of the bond release, the Division has no further <br />jurisdiction over the above-referenced ponds. <br />My conclusion is based on the following 6 reasons: <br />1) The Division has previously approved the ponds as permanent; <br />2) No reclamation liability is associated with the ponds; <br />3) The ponds are no longer pact of a sediment control system thaz is within our <br />jurisdiction (Hayden Gulch Mine's sediment control system has undergone <br />final bond release); <br />4) The tumor permit area comprises less than l'90 of the ponds' drainage areas; <br />5) The sole purpose of maintaining a mining and reclamation permit on the two <br />parcels where the ponds are located is to achieve adequate shrub density; <br />6) The ponds are located within the permit area only because they lie within the <br />fenced shrub enclosures. These fenced enclosures provide swell-defined, <br />residual permit boundary. Had the shrub parcels been located away from the <br />ponds, the ponds would be outside the permit area. <br />cc: David Betty, CDMG <br />lobo Weinman, Montgomery Watson <br />