Laserfiche WebLink
General Comments <br />W- <br />A) The application for the most part appears to follow closely the previously approved Amendment # <br />8 (AM-08) application. It refers to AM-08 approved submittals to explain most of the narrative. As <br />such, the Division assumes that the AM-08 volumes, as submitted to the DRMS and the County <br />Clerks and Recorder's Office in March 2000, were also available for the public to refer to in the event <br />there were questions about what was approved in AM-08. Without the AM-08 material, and <br />knowing what was approved in August 2000 by the Mined Land Reclamation Board over <br />objections, it would be difficult if not impossible for a reader to know exactly what was approved <br />and contrast the difference between this proposal and what was already approved. Did CC&V <br />provide additional copies of AM-08 volumes with AM-09 volumes to the County Clerks and <br />Recorder's Office? <br />Only small changes to the total affected area are proposed under this amendment (from 4184 acres <br />to 4199 acres). The total permit acreage of 5,847, as approved under AM-08, still remains in effect. <br />However, the Division can't emphasize enough the need to have AM-08 volumes available to the <br />public since this amendment relies heavily on what is already approved under that amendment. <br />Response: <br />Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company (CC&V) provided copies of the Amendment <br />No. 8 Application to the County Clerks and Recorder's Office on March 31, 2000. See <br />Attachment 1 for copy of completed transmittal form. In addition, copies of the Amendment <br />• No. 8 Application have been available at the Teller County Community Services offices, the <br />CC&V Victor Administration offices, and the DRMS offices throughout the Amendment No. <br />9 review process. <br />The changes requested in this application are fully described and supported by materials <br />provided as part of the MLE Project Application - Amendment No. 9. Pertinent information <br />from previous submittals was incorporated into the MLE Project Application and Drawing <br />C-3 and C-4 depict all proposed changes such that Amendment No. 9 was a stand alone <br />document. Thus, uYe respectfully disagree that Amendment No. 8 specifically needed to be <br />available in order to understand Amendment No. 9 but nevertheless it was available as noted <br />above. In addition, none of the public comments expressed concerns regarding access to the <br />Amendment No. 8 Application nor did the express confusion regarding what was being <br />proposed in the Amendment No. 9 Application. <br />B) The current amendment application proposes the following changes: <br />1) Minor permit boundary changes in the Grassy Valley area. <br />Response: <br />As is noted, there is a small permit boundary change in the Grassy Valley area. <br />0 2) Increase the overall affected areas by adding mining areas associated with the main Cresson, <br />Wild Horse and North Cresson. <br />Response: