Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:c` 04-16-U7;04,32FM1 <br />APR-lA-2007 IO:IIAM fRDM-DIV REG. .LION MINIM6 6 SAhkIT ; <br />au~u,uotua 570 24`i 1616 3/ 4 <br />~-sea r.ouuuuo r~ia <br /> ~ <br />~a~~ ,~.~ dwnaer~aobral nsQQrm.nmt <br />~(~Y8 L+ r ~tlll~ll~ff M: (970) 565-8394 <br />~1) HlIM7~0 @W11~~t'f '1!r a~ K~~+~l~. ~ Yoln-Pot -Mer~eAe~ <br />13 Apra 2007 <br />12ECEIVED <br />MINI&D Lr-ND RECtaa~fn~ox Boarln <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Deaveq Ct7 80203 <br />Attention: Catherine Kraeger-Rov~ey~MLR Board Chair <br />Re: petition for Reconsideration,°w/ nCw & relevant facts <br />March 14, 2007 Defrn~'ir'ons Interpre,~tfon Board Hearing <br />lI'indmatsh Sandstax M 20050094of lvlesa Sandstone, LLC <br />Dear Chauperson ICraegeC-Rovey; <br />APR 13 ZU01 <br />~ MMIn9 and S loon. <br />RECEIVED <br />MAY 1 'a ZU07 <br />Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety <br />First, I want to thank the Board for their indulgence during the difficult circumstances of conducting <br />our March 14a' hearing, with our testimony and participation partially rendered by tetephone. That <br />method unfortunately put us in a disadvaatege in adequately hearing all the discussion and <br />emphasizing our points. Chief among those points was the definition of techrried retd-~on in the <br />Rules & Regulations portion of the adopted mining law_ <br />I have been prov,ded with a draft of the Hoard Order by the Board's attorney. After analyzing that <br />draft Order I must, in the best interest of my c1ieM, petition dre Board to reconsider their conclusions <br />in order to comply with the letter ofthe ffii{uab BanD f1l:eelwtlatlcau met definitions. <br />Apparently the Boazd's main reason for denying our appeal was the tack of a vehicle is the technical <br />revision process for notifying neighboring tandownen within 200 feet of the proposed permit <br />boundary. Regardless ofthxt oversight in ~Ijt Riet to provide that essepaial notice we maintain that <br />the provisions of the Law's defioitions still must be followed. <br />The Permittee/Opetator's request for a teehrrical revision to exchange equal acreage in a boundary <br />revision ~ tompty with the strict interpretation of ~fje R[ct's Rules 8i R,erations definition of a <br />Technical Revision, having a minor effect upon lire approved Reciarngtion flan. On the other <br />hand, the Division's interpretation and policy to require anAmendment, in this case does rror. since <br />the aaeage is not to be increased and the change has no significant effect upon ttte approved <br />Reclamation Plmr. These arguments were placed in evidence at the appeal hearing sad are <br />referenced is the findings offset of the Board Order. <br />Again, where such an oversight in ~1ye Ries is detected we insist that the Board must interpret the <br />situation according to the terars of the current law and in .favor of the Perrrrittee, white still doing its <br />best to preserve the rights of alt patties concetaed, i,e, the surrounding landowners. To that effect <br />we propose that the Operator provide Division with notarized nofrfrcation acknowledgement <br />statemems or LISPS Certified Mail receipts from those affected neighboring landowners (neW and <br />releran! avldmca par Rma 29_stzll to satisfy the unsta[ed. yet essential notification requirement of <br />the raining law, and to sarisfy the iivision and the Board's concern in that regard. <br />Flb: Came/C/YareaS/1Nn~~s3/soon! Petlllon 17131!007 <br />