PERMFILE121069

• Permit No: M1999024
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 7/7/1999
• From: DMG
• To: COSTILLA CNTY
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iiiiiiiiiiiu iii ~

STATE OF
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Departmem of Natural Resources
1 i13 Sherman 51.. Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
July 7, 1999
Ms. Elizabeth Pacheco, Counry Administrator
Costilla Counry
352 Main St.
San Luis, CO 81152
Dear Ms. Pacheco:
The Division has received and reviewed Mathew Valdez's June 30, 1999 response to the Division's Zed adequacy
review of the application for the San Acacio Pit. Certain unsatisfied adequacy issues mentioned in the Division's
2"d adequacy review have been eliminated by Mr. Valdez's response, however, one still remains and is identified
below:
PAGE 2 OF APPLICATION: Since the County is the applicant for this permit and has assured the
Division that the area of the pit will be rezoned by the County from Agricultural to IndustriaUCommercial in the
future, this adequacy issue will be considered as satisfied by the response.
D I VISION O F
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
R E C L A M A T I O N
MINING•$AF ETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. wal<her
E~ecuuve Director
nlichael B. Long
Dn~sion Director
EXHIBIT C, Section (b): This adequacy issue regarding topsoil salvage has been satisfied by the response.
EXHIBIT C, Section (i) and Section (I): Since the County has made contact with the Water Quality
Control Division in regard to a Storm Water PermitlStorm Water Management Plan, the Division considers this
adequacy issue regarding storm water runoff satisfied by the response.
EXHIBIT D, Section (c) (iv): This adequacy issue regarding the application rate of the seed mix on the
reclaimed slopes of the pit has been satisfied by the response.
EXHIBIT G: This adequacy issue regarding the discrepancies between the quit claim deed and the
survey has not been satisfied. The response does not provide the Division any explanation for the difTerences
between the distances and directions provided to outline the permit area by Luchetti Land Surveying and those in
the Quit Claim Deed provided to demonstrate ownership of the land by the County. >n conversations between the
County representatives and the Division on the proposed mine site on June 17, 1999, the Counry representatives
indicated that this issue would be explored with Luchetti and an explanation secured.
Please explain the discrepancies between the Quit Claim Deed to the property to be mined and the survey
plan supplied. Is the proposed 8.04 acre permit area intended to lie inside the 10.8 acre property owned by the
County?
EXHIBIT L: This adequacy issue regarding possible damage to State Highway 142 by the County's
equipment operating at and from the pit is considered satisfied by the response which states that only rubber teed
vehicles and equipment will be used for the operation. In addition, the additional adequacy issue regarding possible
damage to the electric fence along the State Highway 142 right-of--way, a previously unidentified structure within
200 feet of the affected area and noted as an adequacy issue during the inspection on June 17, 1999, is also
considered satisfied by the response. Quinlan Farms and Ranches, inc, has been identified in the response as the
owner of the fence and accepts responsibility for maintenance of the fence.
~_ a q-oZW
COLORADO