My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV94438
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV94438
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:19:52 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:40:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983084
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/16/1998
Doc Name
BEFORE MLRB STATE OF COLO DRAFT HEARING ORDER
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.
/
12
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
~~ <br />Daniel Gravelle August 10, 1998 <br />Danika Gravelle August 10, 1998 <br />Annette Hermetz August 10, 1998 <br />Sheila Lamb August 10, 1998 <br />John C. Bachman August ]0, 1998 <br />ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTORS <br /> <br />August 24, 1998 <br />August 24, 1998 <br />August 24, 1998 <br />August 24, 1998 <br />August 24, 1998 <br />Issues raised by objectors are listed below. Issues which come under the jurisdiction of the Board, as <br />determined at the Pre-hearing Conference, are listed first. The Division's response to objection issues <br />follow each issue. Issues that are not under the jurisdiction of the Board, as determined at the Pre- <br />hearing Conference, are listed second. <br />ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />1. The objectors complain that a copy of the amendment application was not filed with the County Clerk <br />and Recorder as required. <br />Response -The operator provided proof that a copy of the amendment was fled with the Clerk and <br />Recorder. Apparently, the Clerk and Recorder misplaced the application. <br />2. The objectors state that [he operator is not in compliance with reclamation requirements. <br />Response -The operator is in compliance with most reclamation requirements and will be in total <br />compliance upon approval of the amendment application <br />3. The objectors state that heavy erosion exists on the mine site that may impact local wildlife habitat and <br />natural drainage. <br />Response -The only noticeable erosion problem was observed in the pre-law disturbance areas which <br />are not included in the affected land area. The erosion was minor and the land owner has rentediated the <br />problem. <br />4. Is there any assurance that expanding mining will not impact adjacent domestic wells. <br />Response - Tite mined pit will not encounter groundwater. The depth of [he pit is restricted to 100 <br />feet. The majority of the nearby domestic wells are either upgradient of the pit or they are deeper than <br />the maximum depth of the pit. In addition, there are no domestic wells within 3,000 feet of the pit. <br />5. Mine-induced erosion within the disturbed area, including ambient dust also impacts water quality and <br />vegetative growth. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.