My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE66911
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
700000
>
PERMFILE66911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:12:38 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 9:35:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1992049
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/6/1992
Doc Name
PECK INC LIMITED IMPACT OPERATION 110 2 RECLAMATION PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED 04/14/1992
From
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF OURAY CNTY
To
MLRD
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
• iiiiiiiiiiiiiu iii • <br />CONCERNED CITIZENS OF OURAY COUNTY <br />20 Parkway <br />Ridgway, CO 81432 <br />May 2, 1992 <br />RECEI~E® <br />dAY 0 6 1991 <br />Larry D. Oehler <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 423 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />FAX No. (303)832-8106 <br />RE: Peck, Inc. Limited Impact Operation <br />Reclamation Permit Application <br />Submitted April 14, 1992 <br />Dear Mr. Oehler, <br />Mined Land <br />Reclamation qn~~~~n <br />(110(2)) <br />We wish to offer the following comments regarding the <br />referenced application. <br />Background Information: <br />Peck, Inc. first submitted an Application for Permit from your <br />division on July 11, 1990. That application was submitted under <br />the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act, 34-32-101 ET.S~.,CRS <br />1973 as amended. It involved the same parcel of property as the <br />present Limited Impact Application. The permit was denied <br />following a hearing on February 27, 1991. Prior to the hearing, <br />your Board issued deficiency letters on 10/10/91, 11/13/91, <br />11/16/91, 11/30/91 and 2/1/92. The letters of 11/30/91 and <br />2/1/92 recommended denial of the permit because the applicant <br />failed to provide substantial evidence on the problems identified <br />by the Division. Those problems included a lack of studies and <br />technical information that would allow the Division to analyze <br />1) offsite Impacts, 2) Hydrologic Impacts, and 3) Mining and <br />Reclamation Plans. <br />We have reviewed the current application and have concluded <br />that it is similarly deficient. We find no competent studies or <br />plans to review and feel that the Applicant is following the same <br />course that led to the previous denial. The public and your <br />Division cannot be left substantially in the dark regarding this <br />operation which is proposed for a highly sensitive area. <br />Buecific Deficienaiea: <br />It is extremely difficult to comment on specific deficiencies <br />since the Application contains primarily conclusionary comments <br />about the operation and virtually no studies to analyze. <br />Nonetheless, comments at this point are as follows: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.