My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE54097
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE54097
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:57:19 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 4:01:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999018
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/12/1999
Doc Name
WAGNER ROCK FN M-99-018 BOARD ORDER
From
DMG
To
WAGNER CONSTRUCTION INC
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.
/
3
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 />BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOf~RD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER <br />IN THE MATTER OF WAGNER CONSTRUCTION, THE WAGNER ROCK MINE SITE. FILE <br />NO. M-99-018. APPEAL OF DIVISION'S APPROVP.L OF A 1 l0 PERIvI1T <br />THIS MATTER having come before the Mined Land F.eclamation Board ("the Board") on July 27, <br />1999, for a hearing pursuant to Construction Material F.ules and Regulations Rule 1.4.7, the Board <br />makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and enters the following Order: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />1. On April 14, 1999, the Division approved Wagner's 1 l0 permit to operate a gravel pit <br />in Moffat County, Sec. 10, T90W, R6N, 6th P.M. <br />2. On May 13, 1999, the King family, a landowner nzxt to the Wagner site, submitted an <br />objection letter to the l 10 permit approval. <br />3. On May 20, 1999, Donna Ashbough-Hall, a landowner next to the Wagner site, <br />submitted an objection to the l 10 permit approval. <br />4. The appeal letters were timely filed pure uant to Rule 1.4.7, and the matter was <br />scheduled for the July 27-28, 1999, Board hearings for consideration of the merits of the appeals. <br />5. At the hearing, the appellants stated that the grounds of their objections were that <br />Wagner had misrepresented the distances and elevatior changes between the affected area and a <br />nearby spring and spring box partially owned and used by the appellants. The appellants indicated <br />concern that Wagner's mining operation would adversely affect [he spring and spring box. <br />6. The Board determined that the only issues it had the jurisdiction and authority to <br />consider were 1) whether the spring-box is a structure ~.vithin 200 feet of the affected area for which <br />adequate assurance of protection had not been provided in the mining and reclamation plan, and 2) <br />whether [he operations would affect the quantity or quality of the water available at the spring. <br />7. The spring is located a minimum of 875 feet away from the nearest point on the affected <br />land of the Wagner operation, and as such is not a structure within 200 feet of the affected land for <br />which adequate assurance of protection is required in t.ie mining and reclamation plan. <br />8. There is no evidence of any current or I~kely future disturbance to the quantity or <br />quality of water a[ the spring. However, should such a disturbance occur and should it be conclusively <br />proven that the Wagner operations caused [he disturbance, then [he issue may be reopened. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.