PERMFILE64218 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• ~ D ~AFT° Subject Ta Board Approval Idinutes, July 25, 1990 PAGE 4 Mr. John Hickman, representing the operator, described the changes to the mining and reclamation plan and answered questions from the Board. Staff stated that the Division's adequacy concerns have been resolved and recommended approval of the amendment, with no change in the maximum allowable disturbed area of 34.2 acres and existing bond amount (L200,497). It was MOVED that the Board approve Staff's recommendations. SECONDED AND PASSEIf~NANIMOUSIY (Kraeger-Rovey, Cooley, O'Connor, Jouflas, Danielson and Entz). Staff Presentation by Michael J. Boyd: 8. PAGOSA SAND AND GRAVEL, INCORPORATED File No. M-90-006 P. 0. Box 189 Pagosa Springs, Co 8]147 Sec. 18, T35N, R1 W, IOP.N., Archuleta County, 12.69 acres; open pit sand and gravel. Consider 112 permit application (continued from the June Board Meeting). Withdrawn--application withdrawn at operator's request. 9. UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY, INC. File No. M-90-021 P. 0. Box 3609 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Sec. 20, T1 S, R1 E, Ute P.M.., Mesa County, 17.7 acres; open pit sand and gravel. Consider 112 permit application (continued from the June Board Meeting. Continuance--to September Board Meeting at operator's request to allow time to re-publish notice and additional time for objectors to review changes to application. 10. D. H. HOLDING File No, M-87-022 P. 0. Box 735 Silverthorne, CO 80498 Sec, 15, T4S, R78W, 6th P.M., summit County, 38.7 acres; open pit sand and gravel. Consider 112 permit application (continued from the June Board Meeting). Staff gave brief background information, regarding this conversion application, i.e., from a 110 to a 112 permit. The 110 permit was issued in May of 1987. Because of a compiaint from an adjacent landowner, regarding re-alignment with a ditch and water quality in a pond, the site was inspected by the Division in September of 1988. At the time of the inspection, problems noted by the complainant had been resolved. Subsequent complaints that the operator had operated outside of the permit boundary were received by the Division. On August 29, 1989, the Division inspected the site fora second time and noted a possible violation for mining outside the permit boundary.