2005-10-31_REVISION - M1977493 (3)

Home Browse Search

Inbox Message List X Message is not flagged. [ Flag for Follow Up ] Message has been replied to in the past. Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2 5 09:48:11 -0700 From: Stephen M. Brown <steve.brown @state.co.us> [ Add to Address Book 1 Block Address 1 Report as Spam ] To: <allen.sorenson @ state.co.us> Cc: <bruce.humphries @ state.co.us>, <carl.mount @state.co.us> Subject: Re: Climax Mine AM -05 L/ From: Stephen M. Brown [SMTP:STEVE.BROWN @STATE.CO.US] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:48:11 AM To: allen.sorenson @state.co.us Cc: bruce.humphri - - • arl.mount @state.co.us Subject: R- limax Mine AM -05 M4 Auto forward •■_ e Page 1 of 2 I Close This Window l 7 7 - A-cp ±-6,/ Allen, we've done our own legislative research on this and have a quote from Fred Banta that supports Brin Nazarenus interpretation, so I dont' think I need to contact him immediately. When we go to the Board, I'II check with him to make sure we're on the same leg. history page. Here's the quote from Banta re that addition , S.B. 91 -177, befoe the House Ag. Committee, about what 'entire mining operation' means: "I can tell you how think this concurrent is working right here and maybe that would help. The way I see this provision is that the operator, at the time they submit a pemit application of the State, they make the demonstration that they are going to comply wiht the law, a nd aprt of the [law] says, "operations are to be conducted concurrently with mining operations." I see that as an obligation on the part of the operator to demonstrate that his reclamation will be done concurrently with mining. We review the permit application. If there is some reason it can not be done concurrently, it's stated in the exceptions there, such as some as some aspect of mine plan, mine safety, economics, etc., they would have to address those at the time of, that they submit their application. If the State found that that in fact is true, then we would make a finding or recommendation to the Board to approve the permit. If we thought that was not a good basis on which to be exempt from reclamation, they wouldn't get the permit. It wouldn't be modified. There would be concurrent reclamaton going on at the site but when they had gotten to the point where they had done the extraction, then they would have the five years in which to do, to complete all the reclamation...." (Emphasis supplied) When are we scheduling this for the Board? »> "Sorenson, Allen" <allen.sorenson @ state.co.us> 10/30/2005 3:59 PM »> Steve, I had a discussion last week with Bryce Romig of Climax Molybdenum Co. and I told him that we wanted Brian Nazarenus' research into the legislative intent of 34- 32- 116(7)(q). Bryce suggested that the correct chain of contact would be for you to contact Brian and request his research. He is with a different firm, so here is his new contact information: Brian Nazarenus Ryley, Carlock, and Applewhite 1775 Sherman Street Twenty -First Floor Denver, CO 80203 303 - 813 -6702 http: //e21. email. excite.com /msg_read.php ?m =0 &s = &d =1 &mid = 5964 &pr =1 &ArdSI =e1 e... 11/7/2005