Laserfiche WebLink
`o <br />FLATIRON <br />PAVING COMPANY <br />POST OFFICE BOX 279. BOULDER, COLORADO 80306 • <br />M III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />PHONE: (303) 443.9400 <br />December 31, 1980 <br />' RECEIVED <br />Mr. Michael S. savage JA(~ .. ~ ?~?1 <br />Reclamaticn Specialist <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />1313 Sherman Street, 4th Floor aUran LAND RECIAMA110N?COAL' <br />- ;cow, Pte, ~ I4Atuw µsoulitt{ ;--~.• :: <br />Denver, CO 60203 <br />Dear Mike: <br />Your December 24 letter caused surprise both for the information it contained and <br />for its accusatory tone. <br />You~deal with two issues which I will deal with separately. First, BIM seems to <br />have given you a different interpretation of their stance on changes in the <br />ranch road/haul road intersection than they gave us. 7b us the statement that <br />there was "no problem with the road the way it was" was interpreted to mean that <br />they thought that the intersection as constructed did not present a problem and <br />that it was not necessary (or desireable) to change it. Walden Coal Company will <br />regrade the road in question if both MLRB and BLM are in agreement. Please note, <br />however, that your Decenber 24 letter arrived at mY office while I was sick <br />(December 29 and 30) and was not opened until Decenber 31. Grading may not <br />be accomplished by January 2. <br />Secondly, Walden Coal will be glad to sulanit a technical revision (under interim <br />regulations) or minor revision (under permanent program) concerning the elimina- <br />tion of the one culvert at the intersection of County Imad 19 and the Bourg haul <br />road. Our letter to BLM requesting their decision about this culvert was mailed <br />October 7. BI3d's response to this letter was dated Deer 12. My letter to <br />you sumnarizing their response was dated Decenber 15. It was apparently sent the <br />day we received the BLM letter although it did not meet your November 30 deadline. <br />Your Decanber 24 letter seemed to indicate that we were withholding information. <br />In our phone conversation today you indicated that you had received my Decanber 15 <br />letter. <br />Mike, I thought that my Decanber 15 letter provided the information you needed. <br />We are incorporating the changes in our new permit application, which we hope to <br />submit shortly. Ho~uever, during our conversation today you indicated that you also <br />need a request for a technical revision to be approved as a "no comrent" revision <br />by the MLRB at its January meeting. Please accept this letter and my Decenbes 15 <br />letter as requests for a technical revision. FS~closed are the letter from BIM <br />and a Dopy of my Dece~er 15 letter, the twv being virtually identical. Please <br />