REV10252 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • • sss STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY ~ Department o(Natural Resources DENV{EcR ~6~ ~ 1713 Sherman 51., Room 215 ~~~I~E ~e Denver, CO 80203 ~ • revs `• Phone: (303) 8663567 FAX: 13031 832-8106 Roy Romer Governor Michael B. Lang Division Director January 17, 1995 Mr. Robert W. Rill Deadwood Gulch Mining Co. P.O. Box 268 Waltonville, IL 62894 Rfi: Follow-up Review Comments ,. Incas Mine Amendment No. AM-002 Permit No. M-86-076 Dear Mr. Rill: As you know, the Division has accepted Deadwood Gulch Mining Co.'s (DGMC) request for a 90 day extension to February. 16, 1995 for consideration of the above referenced amendment application. This extension was granted in response to a DGMC letter dated November 28, 1994 which contained an appeal of the Division's November 18, 1994 denial decision. Denial of the application became necessary after the various inadequacies in the application identified by the Division on November 3, 1994 and sent to DGMC on that date were not' responded to by DGMC prior to the decision deadline. The response, dated November 22, 1994, was not received by our office until November 28, 1994. Although the Division had some additional geotechnical and hydrology comments which were not made available to the Durango office from our Denver office until November 16, 1994, the two additional review memos were not sent to DGMC prior to the decision date since sending out the additional review comments would have had no effect on the Division's decision to deny the amendment application. The basis for the decision was the lack of a response to earlier Division review comments which did contain basic geotechnical and hydrology comments. Information contained in the additional memos only provided a more detailed explanation of basic Division concerns forwarded on 11/3/94. The Division would like to point out that part of the difficulty involved in completing the review was that the Division was not, prior to the decision deadline, provided with a telephone number where a DGMC contact could be reached during the review period. The Division went through considerable effort to attempt to find a way to contact DGMC by telephone prior to the decision deadline, however these attempts were not successful. Additionally, it should be noted that the Division's review comments, sent to the only address provided on the application form for contacts with DGMC, were returned to our office by the Postal Service. It was only through our additional efforts at searching through lease documents provided in other portions of the application that we were able to find a possible alternate address for sending our 1