GENERAL46936

• Permit No: M1980170
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 4/2/2002
• Doc Name: Response to March 19 2002
• From: DMG
• To: American Mining & Consulting Inc.
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
April 2, 2002
DIVISION O F
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Brian Briggs Greg E. Walther
American Mining & Consulting, h1C. Executive Director
P.O. Box 738 Michael B. Long
OUCay, Ct7 81427 / ~ Division Director
/ V/
Re: Bachelor Mine -Syracuse Portal, Permit M-1980-170, Response to March 19, 2002 Letter.
Dear Mr. Briggs,
I have received the above-cited letter, written on behalf of the permittee, Mr. Carl Dismant of Bachlor Silver Mines
Company, and wish to clarify a couple of points in that letter. Though your letter dealt with both this permitted site
and another permitted site (Bachelor Mine -Khedive Portal, permit M-1980-171), my letter will discuss all items
but only from the perspective of this permit. These points are listed below, in the paragraphs which are numbered
to correspond with those in your letter.
1. The annual report map, which normally should be submitted with the annual report, is considered to be up-to-
date, and requires no new survey work. It is required to be kept current, however, and must be submitted every
year or as needed to reflect chanties. The annual report, map, and annual fee must be submitted by the anniversa
date each year. which is March 25.
2. The runoff control plan you mention does not need to be developed, revised, or submitted. The site currently
has no new grading work to assess nor an undocumented portal discharge to be made part of the permit. This elan
is not deemed to be reauired.
3. Verification of the nature of the portal discharge is not needed since it has been documented and made part of
the permit. No further information is necessary.
4. The sampling plan and parameters of the portal discharge and Dexter Creek is not a requirement for this
permitted site. No information nor proposed ~an is required.
5. Your letter mentions a possible modification of the final land use, implying a modification of the bond amount,
awhich may be submitted as a technical revision. The land use change is not deemed to be reauired at this time.
However, the operator has been notified of the need for a bond increase, as stated in my_letter dated February 11,
2002 The present $1 200 bond is not considered adequate and the end of the initial 60-day~eriod for submittine
the additional $5.056 occurs on April 12. 2002.
_ If the operator wishes to influence the amount of the bond increase, either a response describin¢ different methods
of reclaiming or a technical revision nroposine a different reclamation elan must be provided As you requested in
your March 19, 2002 letter, such changes are to be proposed under a technical revision, which will be submitted by
June 11.2002. (State statute does not allow me to extend the deadline beyond that date.)