Laserfiche WebLink
I:cnln~ical G~rviccs <br />711 Ilurhluslm Qund <br />G~rt~, C11 7i1321~111~9 <br />08 January 2007 <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />dconaer(c~gobrainstorm.net <br />Ph: (970) 56s-8394 <br />[Voice -Fax -Message] <br />RE: Technical Revision Denial -Administrative Appeal Hearing Request <br />Permit N-° M 2006-009, TR-I <br />C Gentlemen: <br />November 1, 2006, the operator, b11ES~k Stk1YDSTOP£, 1.LC, requested a technical revision through <br />their agent, Douglas L. Conger, to revise the boundaries of the Hindmarsh Sandstone quarry, <br />Permit # M 2006-009. The purpose of the adjustment, as described, was to allow use of more of the <br />P bottom land for stockpiling, and to indefinitely delay mining of an equa] acreage of the sandstone <br />butte in the southeast quarter of the property, which is separated from the remaining mining area by <br />Y McElmo Creek. <br />The Office responded November 29, with an "Incomplete Application" notification that amounts to a <br />denial of the TR-I application, requiring instead a modified permit amendment with a reduced initial <br />application fee, but requiring the full applicatiort/amendment processes with notice requirements. <br />We hold that the definition of technical revision in Rule 1.1(49), which states... <br />"...a change in the permit or an application which does <br />not have more than a minor effect upon the approved or <br />proposed Reclamation Plan." <br />is appropriate in this case, since, <br />• The boundary adjustment requested makes no change in the total acreage of the <br />permit area, <br />• The soils description and the reclamation requirement of the exchanged area are <br />identical to that already described in the current permit for the adjacent Office <br />Trailer/Parking yard, <br />• The proposed expanded stockpile yard has the much less disruptive operations use <br />of prodact storage, than the high impact use of mining the Southeast $utte area <br />excluded; no permanent change of elevation nor surface reconfiguration, <br />• The proposed exchanged area is totally within the boundaries of the <br />Operator/Lrnadoivner's owned property, and not adjacent to a neighboring owner, <br />unlike the Southeast Butte area. <br />On the other hand an amendment, as defined by Rule 112(7)(a)(6) ... <br />File: Comp/C lMesaSS /HindmarshAppeal i/2&2007 <br />