Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />r <br />co i I =1% I is son <br />124601 st Street <br />P.D. Box 247 <br />Eastlake, Colorado 80614-0247 <br />Office: 303-457-2966 <br />Fax: 303-280-2978 <br />August 25, 2010 <br />Mr. David Bird <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Colorado Division of Mining, Reclamation and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Lafarge's Pollyanna Mann Pit; Permit No. M1986-079/Acreage <br />Reduction <br />Dear Mr. Bird: <br />I'm writing on behalf of the landowner in response to Ms. Anne Best Johnson's <br />correspondence to you of August 19, 2010 seeking an acreage reduction for Lafarge's <br />mining permit from 77.1 acres to 67.9 acres. This acreage reduction according to <br />Lafarge's map would exclude the residence and out buildings and we certainly don't <br />have any objection to that request. <br />We appreciate Lafarge's professional courtesy in copying us on this request, but <br />are also quite concerned that they did not extend us the same courtesy in a series of <br />letters this past summer with your office attempting to amend the permit under the guise <br />of. Technical Revision No. 8. Lafarge is well aware of the fact that the landowner <br />purchased the property in reliance upon the approved Reclamation Plan which requires <br />all ponds that expose groundwater to surface evaporation to be filled with clean inert <br />material. This is also consistent with the terms of the mining lease between the parties. <br />In an attempt to avoid confusion, our attorney did write you on March 16, 2010 asking <br />to be copied on any such correspondence involving either a technical revision or an <br />amendment, but we were not advised. <br />We have now seen the exchange of correspondence in June, July and August <br />with regard to this matter and interpret'the Division's position to be the same as ours. If <br />Lafarge wants to change the reclamation plan from coarse fill placement area to <br />exposed water, then it would be a major change and not approvable thru a technical <br />review. We interpret Technical Revision No. 8 to be an adjustment of the roadways and <br />not a change in the final reclamation plan.