PERMFILE126799

• Permit No: M2004063
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 1/12/2007
• Doc Name: Compliance with Rule
• From: DRMS whe
• To: Hocker Construction, LLP
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

The Division offers the following explanation for how the detailed notice procedures of Rule 1.6.2
and 1.6.5 were not followed during the Operator's attempt to re-notice the approved application.
• Pursuant to Rule 1.6.2(1)(a), the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of
Supervisors of the soil conservation district are to be noticed before the commencement of
the public comment period. The notices are to occur on a form approved by the Mined
Land Reclamation Board. According to the notice published by the Operator, the public
comment period closed on July 10, 2006. However, the Board of County Commissioners
and Board of Supervisors of the soil conservation district were not noticed until January 5,
2007, approximately 179 days after the close of the public comment period. The notices
did not occur on the Board approved form and indicated a substantial change to the
previously approved application. Therefore, the Division determined that the notices were
in error and that they indicated a substantial change to the application. Pursuant to Rule
1.6.6 a new notice is required.
The Operator did not submit the affidavit required by Rule 1.6.2(1)(b). However, the
posting of the sign required by Rule 1.6.2(1)(b) was verified by DRMS during the site
inspection occurring on December 18, 2006.
• Pursuant to Rule 1.6.2(1 )(c}, copy of the application is to be placed with the County Clerk
or Recorder for public review. Proof of such action, required by Rule 6.4.18 and
1.6.2(1 }(g), has not been received by the Division.
Pursuant to Rule 1.6.2(1)(e), the Operator provided proof of the re-notice for 9 landowners,
2 of which were not noticed during the original application. During the original application
the Operator provided proof of notice for 13 landowners, 6 of which were not included in
the list of landowners for the re-notice. Please clarify whether landownership has changed
and if so, please provide an updated Exhibit C, Mine Plan Map, which shows all adjoining
surface owners as required by Rule 6.4.3(a). If landownership has not changed, please
provide proof of the re-notice to all landowners noticed for the original application, as
required by Rule 1.6.2(1)(e).
Pursuant to Rule 1.6.2(1)(8), piease provide the signed affidavit that the application meets
the applicable requirements of Rule 1.4.1 and 1.4.5.
Pursuant to Rule 1.6.5(2), the Operator is to forward proof of the publication, required by
Rule 1.6.2(1 )(d}, to the Division within 10 working days after the last publication or as soon
thereafter as proof has been obtained. The proof of publication was signed and notarized
on June 19, 2006, but not submitted to the Division until December 21, 2006,
approximately 185 days after signature.
Please contact me at the DMG Durango Office, 701 Camino del Rio, Room 125, Durango, CO
81301, phone [phone], if I can be of greater assistance.
Sin er y
~ ~~
Wallace H. Erickson
Environmental Protection Specialist cc: Tony Waldron, Suzi Ericksen