My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE61822
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
700000
>
PERMFILE61822
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:08:21 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 7:18:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1996049
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
10/2/1996
Doc Name
MARYLAND CREEK RANCH PIT 112 PERMIT APPLICATION
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.
/
7
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 />3. The Board might agree to consider this issue during the Hearing, <br />since it is a technical issue. <br />4. The Board may refuse to consider this issue, on the grounds that it <br />is not within the Mined Land Board of Reclamation's jurisdiction, and <br />is the responsibility of the Colorado Department of Public Health and <br />Environment (CDPHE) and Summit County. <br />5. The Board may refuse to consider this issue, on the grounds that it <br />is not within the Mined Land Board of Reclamation's jurisdiction, and <br />is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and Summit <br />County. <br />6. The Board may refuse to consider this issue, on the grounds that it <br />is not within the Mined Land Board of Reclamation's jurisdiction, and <br />is the responsibility of Summit County. <br />7. It was explained that the proposed financial warranty does not <br />affect the approval of the permit, merely its issuance. The application <br />may be approved, but the Operator does not have a permit until adequate <br />financial surety is posted, and can not mine until this has been done. <br />DMG calculates the financial warranty independent of the Applicant's <br />estimates, and after the Division has set the amount, the Operator has <br />up to one year to post the bond before the application approval <br />expires. If, at that time, the Operator has not posted the bond, then <br />he must re-apply for the permit and go through the application process <br />from the beginning at that time. <br />8. The Board might agree to consider this issue during the Hearing, <br />since it is a technical issue. Further information was requested by DMG <br />during the technical adequacy review, and will be supplied by the <br />Consultant in the near future. <br />9. The Board may refuse to consider this issue, on the grounds that <br />it is not within the Mined Land Reclamation Board's jurisdiction, and <br />is the responsibility of Summit County. <br />10. Issues pertaining to groundwater quality lie within the <br />jurisdiction of the Mined Land Board of Reclamation, and will probably <br />be considered during the Hearing. Issues pertaining to surface water <br />quality do not lie within the jurisdiction of the Mined Land Board of <br />Reclamation, and will probably not be considered during the Hearing, <br />since they are the responsibility of CDPHE. <br />11. This issue is being dealt with under Permit #M-82-164, and has no <br />bearing on Permit Application #M-96-049 at this time. It is likely that <br />the Board would refuse to consider this issue's impact on the new <br />permit. <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.