Laserfiche WebLink
I:coM~ical Su~vices ~ <br />711 Halrto~an Raad <br />Gn~fe~, C/I ii1321-M129 <br />OS January 2007 <br />NOV: NONE <br />Annual Fee: 04/28/07 AC <br />/Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE: Technical Revision Denial (Administrative Appeal Hearing Request <br />Permit N~ M 2006-009,' I <br />Gentlemen: <br /> <br />JAN 10 2007 v <br />livision of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety <br />~ (~-o( ,~ <br />November 1, 2006, the operator, M£.SA SlkNDSTOPIi, LLC, requested a technical revision through <br />their agent, Douglas L. Conger, to revise the boundaries of the Hindmarsh Sandstone quarry, <br />Permit # M 2006-009. The purpose of the adjustment, as described, was to allow use of more of the <br />bottom land for stockpiling, and to indefinitely delay mining of an equal acreage of the sandstone <br />butte in the southeast quarter of the property, which is separated from the remaining mining area by <br />McElmo Creek <br />The Office responded November 29, with an "Incomplete Application" notification that amounts to a <br />denial of the TR-I application, requiring instead a modified permit amendment with a reduced initial <br />application fee, but requiring the full application/amendment processes with notice requirements. <br />We hold that the definition of technical revision in Rule 1.1(49), which states... <br />"...a change in the permit or an application which does <br />not have more than a minor effect uaon the aparoved or <br />proposed Reclamation Plan." <br />...is appropriate in this case, since, <br />• The boundary adjustment requested makes no change in the total acreage of the <br />permit area, <br />• The soils description and the reclamation requirement of the exchanged azea are <br />identical to that already described in the current permit for the adjacent Office <br />Trailer/Parking yazd, <br />• The proposed expanded stockpile yard has the much less disruptive operations use <br />of product storage, than the high impact, use of mining the Southeast Butte area <br />. excluded; .no permanent change ofelevation,nor surface reconfiguration, <br />• The proposed exchanged area is totally within the boundaries of the <br />.. Operator/Landowner's owned property, and not adjacent to a neighboring owner, <br />unlike the Southeast Butte azea. - <br />On the other hand an amendment, as defined by Rule 112(7)(ax6) .. . <br />dconaerCelaobrains W rm.net <br />Ph: (970) 565-8394 <br />(Voice - Fai -Message] <br />File: ComplClMesaSS /HimimarehAppeal 1/62007 <br />