PERMFILE54435

• Permit No: M1998038
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 3/11/1998
• Doc Name: 2 RIVERS PIT FN M-98-010 REVIEW OF KIRKLAND CONSTRUCTION RESPONSE TO DIVISION ADEQUACY REVIEW
• From: DMG
• To: KIRKLAND CONSTRUCTION
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII •
STATE O~COLORADO
DIVISION OF' MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmem of Natural Resources
i 113 Sherman 51., Room 215
Denver, Colorado BO203
Phone: 13071 R66-3567
FA%: 11031 812-R106
March 11, 1998
Mr. James H. Kirkland, General Partner
Kirkland Construction, R.L.L.P.
2101 Main St., P.O. Box 580
Rye, CO 81069
RE: Two Rivers Pit (File M-98-010) Review of Kirkland Construction response to Division
adequacy review
Dear Mr. Kirkland:
The Division appreciates your thorough response to the Division's March 3, 1998 adequacy
review. The Division finds your response acceptable with the following exceptions:
~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Rnmer
Governor
lames S. Luchhead
E recun.e Director
Michael B Lonti
Division Drreno~
EXHIBIT I: You did not include, as your letter indicated, evidence of posting a copy of the entire
application, ie. form and exhibits, with the County Clerk and the date that this was done. The
~',o Division must have evidence of the date of the filing of the complete application in order to
31 assure that the Public has at ]east 5 days from that filing for comment before the decision is made
on the application. (See Rule 1.7.3) A revised decision date may be necessary.
EXHIBIT J(not Hl: While you did include copies of the "green cards" returned to you and
indicating receipt of the notices to the County and the Soil Conservation District, it is the "green
cards" themselves that the Division considers acceptable evidence of the receipt of the required
notices.
In addition to the Division's adequacy issues, conveyed to you in our review dated March 3,
1998, you were advised today by FAX of certain issues identified by [he State Engineer's Office
that bear on aspects of the proposed mining operation. Clearly you must satisfy the State
Engineer's Office in regard to these matters which may then lead to changes in your proposed
operation that, in turn, must be made in your application to this agency.
ff you do alter aspects of your operation in order to deal with the issues identified by the State
Engineer's Office, please advise this agency of those changes prior to the March l7, 1998
decision date for the application in order that approval be considered at that time. As indicated in