My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL39151
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL39151
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:58:40 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:01:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/24/1994
Doc Name
FAX COVER
From
PARCEL MAURO HULTIN & SPAANSTRA PC
To
DMG
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
SENT BY~PMHS : 2-24-94 3~36PM 3032953040 303 632 6106:11 3 <br />PAaCEL, 1'18U$O, HULTIN & SPAaNST33A, P. C. <br />![r. Micheal B. Long <br />February 24, 1994 <br />Page a <br />33-109(7)(4), Tha purpose of the right of successive renewal ie to <br />avoid lorcing an applicant to demonstrate nil of the facto in a <br />renewal that warn demonstrated in the public review process in the <br />initial permit application. The right of successive renewal shifts <br />the burden of proof, which is on the applicant in an initial <br />proceeding, to opponents 1n a rsneval. Thnt is a fair result, <br />because during the initial procasa the applicant is forced to <br />affirmatively demonstrate why the permit would meat the <br />requirements of the statute and regulations. This reasoning ie <br />further demonstrated in CRS 3a-33-109(7)(c), which requires that an <br />applicant qo through the same procasa as an initial permit <br />application, !or any portion of a permit renewal that includes new <br />property boundaries beyond the original boundaries. That was not <br />the case with Permit C-81-013. As Mr. Brown explained in the cited <br />memorandum, the penalty under the statute and regulations for a <br />permittea failing to submit a renewal application on time, ie <br />potentially having to halt operations on the expiration data, <br />pending final approval of the renewnl. <br />2. Wa discussed the issue of right o! access. As explained <br />by Mr. Harnandas, Basin has complied with the requirements o! the <br />Division's rules regarding descriptions of instruments vhich grant <br />rights of access. <br />4. We believe the maps which have been submitted by Basin <br />describe the proposed five-year mine plan. Alter carefully <br />reviewing a series of maps, it appears that the underground <br />workings era in the location where they are shown on the maps, but <br />that the surlaca plotting of the section corner may be in error. <br />Basin has agreed to inveatigata, and to correct any inconaletancy. <br />Raton West's consultants vill.reviaw the narrative descriptions and <br />will inform the Division if it has additional questions. <br />S. We discuasad avatar monitoring programs. Raton Wast has <br />agreed to determine whether nny additional information exists <br />regarding the Pinon Valley Ranch water wall(s). Basin will be <br />conducting a water monitoring program within the currant permit <br />boundary. There may be opportunity to compare and share <br />information. However, The Division already has determined that <br />there ern no significant aquifers it the five year mina plan arses <br />that would be impacted by the mining. <br />6. We shared ideas regarding exchanges of information that <br />would facilitate communications in the future between surface and <br />mineral owners. Among the issues discussed was updated <br />notifications to past purchasers of lots within Rancho Escondido by <br />Raton Wast, which Mr. Habnick believes already has been <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.