My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE38040
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE38040
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:46:52 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:52:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000103
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
2/25/2002
Doc Name
Board Order
From
DMG
To
Southwest Land Services Inc.
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.
/
4
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
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER <br />IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEN P. SMALL TRUCKING AND EXCAVATING, INC., <br />RECONSIDERATION OF 110c PERMTT APPLICATION APPROVAL, FII.E NO. M-2000-103. <br />THIS MATTER came before the Mined Land Reclamation Board on January 24, 2002 at Denver, <br />Colorado for hearing to reconsider the 110c permit application approval by the Division of Minerals and <br />Geology (Division), in accordance with Constmction Materials Rule 4.1(2). The Applicant did not appeaz. <br />Bruce Humphries appeared on behalf of the Division of Minerals and Geology (Division). The Board, having <br />considered the request, and having been otherwise fully informed in the premises, hereby finds and concludes as <br />follows: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />1. Applicant applied fora 110c permit to mine soil The proposed site is a 1.25 acre area in Section 9, <br />T34N, R9W, 10`~ P.M., La Plata County, Colorado. <br />2. The Division approved that application on October 16, 2000. <br />3. In accordance with Hazd Rock/Metal Mining Rule 4.1(2), Applicant has one calendaz yeaz from the date <br />its application is approved to post the financial warranty for the amendment. If the Division does not <br />receive the warranty by then, the Boazd must reconsider the Division's approval of the application. <br />4. The Division did approve the financial warranty for this permit, but an acceptable warranty was not <br />received until November 6, 2001, past the one yeaz deadline. Therefore, the Board is obligated to <br />reconsider the application. <br />5. The Applicant first submitted a proposed financial warranty in September of 2001. The Applicant <br />explained that it's failure to post an adequate warranty on time was due to miscommunications with its <br />insurance company. <br />6. The Division reports no issues with the application or the warranty, and therefore recommends that the <br />application be approved. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.