My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE40809
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE40809
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:43:39 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 10:30:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/14/1990
Doc Name
RESPONSE BRIEF OF BATTLE MTN RESOURCES INC TO COSTILLA CNTY COMMITTEE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SOUNDNESS
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.
/
43
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
perspective because the Board's regulations apply to all non- <br />coal mining operations in Colorado, an extraordinarily broad <br />set of mining operations from alluvial gravel mining <br />activities to quarry operations on dry mountain tops, each of <br />which poses unique site specific hydrologic circumstances and <br />requires a different focus to the Board's inquiry. <br />The inherent discretion available to the Board under <br />Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) is not unlimited. Rather, the Board's <br />discretion is focused and defined by the performance standards <br />of Rule 6, in this case Rule 6.2. That is, the application <br />must contain sufficient information to allow the Board in its <br />discretion to assess compliance with Rule 6.2. :if the <br />application is inadequate in this regard, then the Board has <br />the discretion to deny the permit pursuant to Rule 1.5.5(1). <br />As demonstrated in the previous section of this brief, the <br />Application contained a substantial amount of information <br />responsive to the information requirements of Rule 2.1.2(8) <br />including information specifically responsive to subparagraph <br />d. (see pages 20-23 supra). The Board investigated the <br />information in the application, took additional testimony at <br />the March 22 public hearing pertaining to the issue and then <br />rendered an explicit finding of fact based on the record that <br />the proposed operations would comply with Rule 6.2. In so <br />doing, the Board did not exceed its statutory authority, <br />rather, it conducted precisely the kind of investigation <br />- 2b - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.