My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-12-21_PERMIT FILE - M2017049 (105)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2017049
>
2017-12-21_PERMIT FILE - M2017049 (105)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2021 2:02:30 AM
Creation date
12/21/2017 1:00:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2017049
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/21/2017
Doc Name
Objection
From
Steven Mulliken
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Objection Received
Email Name
AME
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
During the public comment period, the Division of Reclamation, Mining and <br /> Safety ("Division") received one hundred eight comment and objection letters <br /> regarding the proposed Quarry. R. at 4402. In September 2016, the Division <br /> issued a written recommendation to approve the Application. Id. <br /> In October 2016, there was a two-day formal public hearing. R. at 4401. In <br /> December 2016, the Board ordered that the Application be denied. R. at 4412. <br /> The Boarded denied the Application on three grounds. First, the Board found that <br /> the Application did not show the source of the legal right to enter and initiate a <br /> mining operation on the affected land and therefore the Application was not <br /> complete. R. at 4410. Second, The Board found that the Application did not <br /> comply with C.R.S. § 34-32.5-116(4)(h) because it failed to demonstrate that <br /> Transit Mix would minimize the impact on the prevailing hydrologic balance of <br /> the proposed affected land, surrounding area, and on the quality and quantity of the <br /> groundwater systems. Id. Third, the Board found that the Application did not <br /> comply with 2 Colo. Code Regs. § 407-4, Rule 3.1.8 and C.R.S. § 34-32.5- <br /> 115(4)(c) because it failed to adequately take the safety and protection of wildlife <br /> at the proposed site into account. R. at 4411. Transit Mix appealed the Board's <br /> order. <br /> IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.