My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-05-13_REVISION - M1977342 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977342
>
2003-05-13_REVISION - M1977342 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:44:32 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 4:31:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977342
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/13/2003
Doc Name
Pre-hearing conference notice and information
From
DMG
To
AM-4 Parties
Type & Sequence
AM4
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.
/
25
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
As a party to an application under review, you have certain rights and <br />responsibilities not afforded anon-party. For example, as a party, you have the <br />right to sue or be sued in District Court on matters surrounding an application's <br />review and the Board's decision on the application. (For a complete list of a party's <br />rights and responsibilities, please see attached Rule 2.7.3.) If, for any reason, you <br />want to withdraw as a party, you must do so in writing. You may withdraw as a <br />party prior to the time of the Board hearing set to consider the matter. (The Office <br />has included within this packet a form for you to use if you choose to withdraw as <br />a party.) <br />Even if you choose to not to be a party or withdraw your party status, you may still <br />address.the Board on matters of concern to you during the public comment portion <br />of the Formal Boazd Hearing. However, in this case, you will not preserve or be <br />entitled to the rights of a party as detailed in Rule 2.7.3. <br />The Board does not make land use decisions. The Board's decision to approve or <br />deny an application is based on whether the application minimally meets the <br />technical and engineering requirements of the Act and Rules 3.1 and 6. Therefore, <br />to the extent possible, your comments and presentations to the Board should be <br />technically based. It is also helpful, when you can, provide the Boazd with <br />possible solutions or suggestions as to how the application maybe conditioned to <br />solve or mitigate your concerns. However, it must be within the Board's <br />jurisdiction. <br />For a small fee, you may obtain a copy of the Rules and Regulations from the <br />office, in order to review the requirements of Rules 3.1 and' 6. They are also <br />available on the Internet at: http://mining.co.us/. <br />THE ROLE OF OTHER AGENCIES: <br />As part of the adequacy review process, when an application is received and <br />considered filed, the-Office sends a notice of the filing of an application to various <br />local, state and federal agencies. These include the county commissioners and <br />planning and zoning departments, the Division of Wildlife, the Colorado <br />Department of Public Health and the Environment, the Office of the State <br />Engineer, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U. S. Army Corp of <br />Engineers. These and other governmental agencies aze contacted on a case-by-case <br />basis for comments on the application as maybe appropriate. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.