2007-01-09_REVISION - M2006009 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: M2006009
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/9/2007
• Doc Name: Administrative Appeal Hearing Request
• From: Geological Services
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: TR1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~~
v
O
P
Y
~-- I:~d~icnl G~n~cc~s
~r~ ` '~` 711 Nsirtnum 1[~~d
G~rtci, Cli i1:1221~N12J
Mined Land Reclamation Boazd
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
I.tJN'%
dcgnger(~gobrainstorm.net
Ph: [phone]
[Voice - Faz -Message]
R
~ Fc~~'d1~~-~
p;~ls qN2 J
Mj„ ~9 I ,QN2ZOOJ
a~asai a«~n
ety
J~
G,F; .
R:.
RE: Technical Revision Denial Administrative Appeal Hearing Request
Permit N~ M 2006-009, TR-I
Gentlemen:
~~~f ~~'d
®`~?~4T
rF,
=~~n
November 1, 2006, the operator, IAfS~t SANDSTONE, 1.LC, requested a technical revision through
their agent, Douglas L. Conger, to revise the boundaries of the Hindmarsh Sandstone quarry,
Permit # M 2006-009. The purpose of the adjustment, as described, was to allow use of more of the
bottom land for stockpiling, and to indefinitely delay mining of an equal acreage of the sandstone
butte in the southeast quarter of the property, which is separated from the remaining mining area by
McElmo Creek.
The Office responded November 29, with an "Incomplete Application" notification that amounts to a
denial of the TR-I application, requiring instead a modified permit amendment with a reduced initial
application fee, but requiring the fullapplication/amendment processes with notice requirements.
We hold that the definition of technical revision in Rule 1.1(49), which states...
`...a change in the permit or an application which does
not have more than a minor effect upon the approved or
proposed Reclamation Plan."
is appropriate in this case, since,
• The boundary adjustment requested makes no change in the total acreage of the
permit area,
The soils description and the reclamation requirement of the exchanged area aze
identical to that already described in the current permit for the adjacent O;~ce
Traiter/Parking Yazd,
The proposed expanded stockpile yard has the much less disruptive operations use
of product storage, than the high impact use of mining the Southeast Butte azea
excluded; no permanent change of elevation nor surface reconfiguration,
The proposed exchanged area is totally within the boundaries of the
Operator/Landowner's owned property, and not adjacent to a neighboring owner,
unlike the Southeast Butte area.
On the other hand an amendment, as defined by Rule 112(7)(a)(6) ...
File: Comp / C / RAesaSS ! HindmarshAppeal
08 January 2007
~mzoo~