INSPEC21223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'l ~ ~ • ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS EXTRACTION OPERATION Presentation Form Appeal of Division Approval of a 110 Reclamation Permit GENERAL INFORMATION Approval Date: April 14, 1999 Permit ~'ype: 110 File No.: M-99-018 Permitted Acres: 9.75 acres Permittee: Wagner Construction Commodity: gravel Operator: Wagner Constntction County: Moffat Existing Bond: $8,740.00 Adequate?: YES Method of Mining: open extraction Speciali~:t: Christina Kamnikar NATURE OF ITEM(S) The Division decided to approve [he Operator's application for a reclamation permit on April 14, 1999. This decision was appealed within the 60-day timeframe required by the Rules (Rule 1.4.7). The appellants allege that the Pertnittee submitted inaccurate and/or false information in his application, and that sufficient measures to protect off-site structures (a spring and spring basin) have not been taken. ISSUES Administrative - I) The Permittee estimated both the distance from his site to the nearby spring, and the height from the spring to the site, from local topography maps. He stated in his application that there v~ere no permanent man-made structures within 200 feet of the site in Exhibit B. He also stated that there were no "springs, I:tkes, streams, stock water ponds, ditches, reservoirs, or aquifers which would receive drainage from the mine area within a 1000 feet radius" of the permit area. Exhibit L (supplement) stated that the closest man-made structures were 1310 :'eet away, and pointed to the residences nearby. From [he scale of this map, the spring would appear to be 1100' away front the closest site comer, with the height from the spring to the crest of the site approxitately 60' to 80' with the depth of excavation to be 23 feet deep. A USGS survey map (upon which Mr. Wagner's maps were based) seems to indicate that these heights are accurate, and that the distance may be approximately ] 000 feet. At this time, the true distance (estimated from maps provided by the SCD) is believed to be 1000 feet. (Jay Wagner, Dale Biskup and the Appellants are given the opportunity speak on this issue) Administrative Issues Notes: The Appellants did not submit comments during [he comment period of [his permit. All objections [o this permit were filed on the decision date or after. It was explained to DMG that they were unaware of the separation between the County and State process, and did not realize when the due date for comment was because of this. It should also be noted (though not a direct concern at this time) that the Applicant wishes to have permission to do spot- blas[ing at this site. No mention of this was made in the initial application, and the approval of a technical revision to [he permit (including a blasting plan and the recommendations of a professional engineer) will be required prior to permission being given to blast on the site.