ENFORCE37256 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. At a formal Boazd hearing held on May 10, 2006, the Board approved the Petitioner's Section 112 Reclamation Permit application, over objections. The Board's order indicated that the Petitioner would transport water from an offsite industrial ditch owned by the Petitioner, but that if the water source changed, the Petitioner would seek a permit revision. The type of permit revision -permit amendment or technical revision -would be determined by the Division following submittal of the proposed revision. 3. Following the May 2006 formal Boazd heazing, the Petitioner submitted a proposed technical revision application for an alternative water source. On February 14, 2007, the Division denied the Petitioner's request because the change in water sources increased the acreage affected by mining. On that basis, the Division stated that a permit amendment would be required. 4. The Petitioner appealed the Division's decision in a letter dated February 26, 2007. 5. The process for appealing a Division decision is set forth in Construction Materials Rule 1.4.11. The rule authorizes persons to petition the Boazd for a hearing if they can demonstrate that they have been adversely affected or aggrieved by an action of the Division, and their interests are legally protected. 6. The Boazd has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections 3432.5-104 and 34- 32.5-107 of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials, Section 34-32.5-101 et seq. C.R.S. (2006) ("Act"). A technical revision is defined in Construction Materials Rule 1.1(49) as a "change in the permit or an application which does not have more than a minor effect upon the approved or proposed Reclamation Plan." An amendment is defined in Construction Materials Rule 1.1(6) as a "change in the permit or an application which increases the acreage of Petition on Division Decision Benson Bros., M-2005-071