My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL46384
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL46384
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:19:28 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 2:36:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2001001
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
Boards Answer to Boyton et al v. MLRB
From
AGO
To
MLRB & 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.
/
187
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
Stormwater discharge permits are administered by the WQCD. As with wellpermits, Four <br />States must demonstrate to the Board that it has, or will seek a stormwater dischazge permit for <br />this mining operation, if it intends to discharge stormwater. Construction Materials Rule 6.3.6. <br />Four States has done so. Vol. 1, p. 235. <br />Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Four States failed to identify chemicals it would use for dust <br />control, including magnesium chloride. The Boazd does not impose dust control requirements. <br />Dust control is an air emission issue over which the Colorado Department of Public Health and <br />Environment, Air Pollution Control Division has jurisdiction.t ~ § 25-7-111(1), C.R.S. <br />The Boazd's decision that Four States satisfied these requirements is supported by <br />substantial evidence. <br />VIII. The Board Has No Authority to Adjudicate Plaintiffs' Zoning Issues. <br />The Plaintiffs challenge the Board's decision in its prehearing order not to hear evidence <br />on issues including the cumulative impacts of gravel pits along the Dolores River, traffic, noise, <br />aesthetics, and preservation of natural resources. They argue that the Board is authorized to <br />consider these issues when it was deciding whether to issue Four State's permit. They cite § 34- <br />32.5-115(4)(d), C.R.S., which provides that the Board shall not deny a permit except on one or <br />more of the following grounds: <br />The proposed mining operation, the reclamation program, or the <br />proposed future use is contrary to the laws or regulations of this <br />state or the United States, including but not limited to all federal, <br />state, and local permits, licenses, and approvals, as applicable to <br />the specific operation. <br />" The Air Pollution Control Division approved Four States' emissions permit on March 22, <br />2001. Yot. 2, p. 652. <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.