My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12844
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12844
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:13 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:34:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1992080
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
3/22/1993
Doc Name
PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVAL OAKRIDGE ENERGY INC THE CARBON JUNCTION MINE FILE NO C-92-080
From
DAN HERNANDEZ
To
HARRY RANNEY
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.
/
2
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
~~ <br /> <br />Memo to Harry Ranney -2- March 22, 1993 <br />Junction "low wall" was not a typical "highwall," it was suggested that it was exempt <br />from having to be "eliminated" as required per our Rules. <br />Upon further consideration, however, it is apparent to me that the difference between the <br />Carbon Junction low wall and a typical vertical highwall is not significant enough from a <br />reclamation standpoint to warrant exemption from our reclamation performance standards. <br />This is because both highwalls and low walls depart significantly from original regional <br />geomorphology, thereby requiring reconfiguration to provide for slope stability, traversing <br />by wildlife and livestock, erosion control, and implementing successful vegetation. As <br />such, the new permit must include in its reclamation plan a description as to how the <br />applicant will reclaim the low wall in accordance with the aforementioned Regulations. <br />Lack of this description, and of a commitment to implement it, will constitute basis for <br />permit application denial. <br />We also discussed the Division's approval of the previous Pueblo Coal application far the <br />same site (Permit No. C-82-054). Upon further consideration of this issue as well, I <br />believe that approval of that application should not be the sole basis for approving the new <br />Oakridge Energy application. Doing so could establish a precedent whereby inappropriate <br />approvals of new permits might occur for operations where the review of its previous <br />permit application may have failed to address a significant regulatory issue. Reviewing <br />previous applications certainly contributes to our efficiency in permitting procedures by <br />eliminating redundancy and thereby increasing the speed of our review; however, our <br />decision to approve or deny any new application must be based on the determination of <br />whether that new application meets all current regulations, regardless of previous findings <br />and decisions. <br />D I H/ bj w /m: \oss\bj w\d i h.80 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.