Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> LAW OFFICES OF <br /> FOWLER, SC IMBERG & FLANAGAN <br />DANIEL M. FOWLER, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br />TIMOTHY P. SCHIMBERG 1640 GRANT STREET <br />TIMOTHY J. FLANAGAN? <br /> <br />KATHERINE TAYLOR EUBANK DENVER, COLORADO 80203 <br /> <br />JEFFERY B. STALDER TELEPHONE: (303) 298-8603 <br /> <br />ADAM B. LINTON TELEFAX: (303) 298-8748 <br />ANDREW R. MCLETCHIE <br />BRIAN E. WIDMANN <br />1 AL 50 ADMITTED IN WYOMING <br />2 ALSO ADMITTED IN WYOMING AND MONTANA <br />X62 <br />AFFILIATED OFFICE: <br />PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C. <br />323 WEST MAIN, SUITE 301 <br />ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 <br />TELEPHONE: (970) 925-9190 <br />TELEFAX: (970) 925-9199 <br />Fmq ME C IV. RD <br />September 14, 2010 <br />Timothy Power <br />Vice President and Associate General Counsel <br />? 0 Lafarge North America, Inc. <br />12018 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 500 <br />Reston, VA 20191-3432 <br />Re: M&G Pit (Mann) DRMS File M-1986-079 <br />Dear Mr. Power: <br />15 70" 1 <br />Thank you for your letter of August 27, 2010 which was sent by FedEx to my office and <br />received on Monday, August 30. Unfortunately it arrived while I was involved in a trial in <br />Greeley, which has delayed my opportunity to respond. <br />I'm sure that Ms. Johnson is keeping you advised of the status of this matter, but it is <br />apparent from your point number three in your letter that you weren't aware of the most recent <br />activities. Enclosed is a copy of our letter of August 25, 2010 to David Bird which constituted <br />our approval of Lafarge's request to reduce the mining boundaries. <br />It's also quite apparent that we continue to disagree regarding the lease provisions as well <br />as whether or not there has been a formal approval of the change that Lafarge seeks in the <br />Reclamation Plan such that the groundwater can be exposed in the ponds created within the <br />disturbed. While you may not agree, I believe it's clear from staff correspondence in this matter <br />that they agree with our position that a Technical Amendment can't be used for a Major <br />Modification such as a change of the final end-use of a piece of property. We understand that <br />you didn't want to involve the landowners in your attempt to get Technical Revision No. 8 <br />approved in spite of our written request to the contrary. If we need to do so, we can take this <br />matter to the Board of Reclamation and get an adjudicatory ruling as to staff's authority in that <br />regard and your client's obligations. Even if.for some reason the Division considers the permit <br />to be amended, I'm sure you are aware of the provision in our lease that indicates: