My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE59102
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE59102
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:01:25 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 6:08:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/3/2005
Doc Name
Further comments on adequacy review answers
From
Petrock & Fendel P.C.
To
DMG
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
Petroek ~ Fendel, P.C. <br />t\klDrneys <br />Jemea d Pe4nek <br />Frederick A. Fendel, IIl <br />BcaU M. Huyler <br />Mellhea 8. Poznenovic <br />Ceimen 8. Flell, Of'Counsel <br />November 1, 2005 <br />RECEIVEC <br />NOV 0 3 2005 <br />Qfvtsu,.: .;r .aa.,,,e%...~~.-,, e. <br />Gary J. Crosby, Darale~l <br />700 17th Street 8uike 1800 <br />Denver. Colorado 80202 <br />303-534-0702 <br />3038340310 N'ax <br />Mr. Tom Schreiner <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman St., Rm. 215 <br />Denver, Co 80203 <br />aaa.petrockfendetwm <br />RE: Gilpin.County Reply to October 24, 2005 Response by Applicant to 4th <br />Adequacy }ieview (Permit Application M-2004-067) <br />Dear Mr. Schreiner: _ „' , <br />This reply is submitted on behalf of the County of Gilpin ("County"), a party to the <br />proceedings in this matter. The County continues to be concerned about Applicant's non-compliance <br />with section 112 permitting requirements. Nothing in Applicant's Response to the 4th Adequacy <br />Review has modified the County's position in this regard. Additionally, the County hereby <br />incorporates in this letter all previous replies to adequacy review correspondence as though set forth <br />in detail herein. <br />The Division of Minerals and Geology's ("DMG") rules require that an Application contain <br />a statement that the Applicant has applied "for all necessary approvals from local government." CMR <br />1.4.1(5)(d). Applicant has continued flaunt this requirement, and has not applied for the requisite <br />County approval. Further, Applicant has offered a tortured reading of the relevant statutes and <br />regulations in support of the position that local approval need not be obtained. <br />Local Government Approval <br />On page 6 of Applicant's Response to the 41h Adequacy Review, Applicant contends that an <br />applicant.need not.seek local government approval prior to obtaining a permit from the DMG. <br />Applicant's position is unavailing. First, CMR 1.4.5 provides that "all general application <br />requirements outlined in subsection 1.4.1 shall be r,~quired for a 112 reclamation permit application." <br />.. :. ~~~: <br />The language in this_ section is irnambiguous..,Second, CMR 1.4.1(5)(d), which is one of a series of <br />enumerated general requirements, provides that all application forms shall contain a statement that <br />the applicant has applied for all necessary approvals from local government. The CMR could not be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.