My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2022-10-18_ENFORCEMENT - M1976007UG
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1976007
>
2022-10-18_ENFORCEMENT - M1976007UG
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2022 10:22:49 AM
Creation date
10/18/2022 2:46:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1976007UG
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/18/2022
Doc Name
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
From
DRMS
To
Denver Brick Company
Email Name
ECS
MAC
CMM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
contractor inspects for misfires or dangerous geological conditions and then notifies <br /> the operator that all is clear before mining continues. <br /> 23. Objectors argued that the Application's mining plan was insufficiently <br /> detailed. Objector Bohling raised concerns that Applicant had not addressed the <br /> stability of non-structures in its blasting plan. Mr. Bohling also raised concerns <br /> about reclamation leaving the hogback much steeper than it currently is and that the <br /> steep highwall may create a geological hazard that could slide in the future. Objector <br /> Kiyzwicki also raised concerns regarding geotechnical stability but focused on the <br /> issue of dipping bedrock, which Mr. Kryzwicki claimed could break easier than <br /> heaving bedrock and cause offsite damage. Mr. Bohling also raised concerns with the <br /> Application's reclamation plan, particularly that there were not timetables for <br /> reclamation work to be completed and that the individual phases of reclamation had <br /> not been listed. <br /> 24. The Division recommended approving the permit Application over <br /> objections. <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> 25. The Board has jurisdiction over Applicant and this matter pursuant to <br /> the Act. <br /> 26. Under section 34-32.5 115(4), C.R.S., "the applicant must comply with <br /> the requirements of this article and section 24-4-105(7), C.R.S." <br /> 27, Under Rule 1.4.1(10), the Applicant"has the burden of demonstrating <br /> that the application meets the minimum requirements of the Act, Rules, and <br /> Regulations." <br /> 28. "The proponent of an order shall have the burden of proof."Rule <br /> 2.8.1(1) and section 24-4-105(7), C.R.S. By filing the Application, Applicant was the <br /> "proponent of an order' at the hearing and has the burden to prove that the <br /> Application is consistent with applicable laws and rules. <br /> 29. In considering whether to grant a permit to an applicant, the Board <br /> "shall not deny a permit except on one or more of the following grounds," as relevant: <br /> (a) The application is incomplete and the performance and <br /> financial warranties have not been provided. <br /> (c) Any part of the proposed mining operation, the reclamation <br /> program, or the proposed future use is contrary to the laws or <br /> regulations of this article. <br /> Denver Brick Company <br /> Golden Mine/M-1976-007UG g <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.