2002-08-21_PERMIT FILE - M2002004 (2)

Home Browse Search

Ms. Sandra L. Brown Pre- hearing Conference Officer Div. Minerals & Geology Dept of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Ms. Brown: July 30,2002 This report is in response to your request for more complete information regarding the reclamation plan's failure to provide for adequate historical and archaeological preservation and protection of the state public lands. We have tried to follow the proper fore mat where ever possible. Enclosed in this packet are an additional 12 copies of this report. RE :Pre - hearing Order,+ DMG File #M- 2002- 004:GCC Rio Grande Inc; Red Rock Mine & Plant; page 5,para #23;Other Permits and Licenses - Archaeological and Historical Preservation : QUESTION ?(from Ms Brown) "Is clearance from the State Historic Preservation Officer regarding properties of historic significance including the need for an archaeological survey, necessary to conduct the proposed operation? (Rules 6.3.6,6.4.12) ANSWER (from objector) Yes, notification of the State Historic Officer is required as well a notification of other interested parties ,agencies and tribes. An archaeological survey is necessary before a reclamation permit is issued on the proposed operation. The following material is presented in support of our objections. OBJECTOR PRESENTATION EXHIBIT A: Non - compliance with State Acts. Rules and Regulations It is our contention that applicant's permit request and plan fails to meet minimal requirements of the Act, Rules and Regulations . As stated in the Rules, Form 266- 3,Rev,07/12/96 ,Amended and Restated General Mining Lease No.# GM3299;February 24.1998,page 8 of 9, paragraph 30: ARCHAEOLOGY -It is contrary to State law to excavate ,appropriate or disturb any historical, prehistoric or archaeological site or resource on any lands a iministered by the Lessor. Discovery of a suspected site resource shall immediately be brought to the attention of Lessor and the State Archaeologist or lessee shall provide evidence that no significant archaeological sites exist on the Leased Premises which could be destroyed be Lessee's operations. NOTE: No such evidence was presented by the either the State Archaeologist or the Lessee , in spite of numerous historical rectirds available in the literature . No official archaeological site review was done on the Affected Land area.. When contacted, the State Land Board stated that Dr. Susan Collins had waived the need for a site review. A search of the records failed to find any record of such waiver. A formal opinion by State Attorneys Gale A. Norton & Antony B. Dyl was used to provide justification for the alleged waiver. When Mr. Dyl was contacted , he stated that his opinion dealt with a private land matter and could not be used to justify a waiver for State Trust Lands. It was alleged that a Ruth Penney was hired to do a site survey of the Affected lands , but there is no record of such a survey, nor did she receive a permit fro~ the State Archaeology Office to do a survey. If a survey was done without a permit, it would be in violation of state statutes. 1