Laserfiche WebLink
02/12/1998 11:22 9702597 • PAGE 03 <br />pre-hearing conference may include, but are not limited to the information related to the angles <br />of repose, the proposed upgrades to the BLM right-of--way that is proposed as access to the <br />applicant's operation, rerouting of the access road to the south to avoid cultural resources, and <br />other changes that may be necessitated by discovery and analysis of the cultures sites in the <br />affected area. <br />The December 17, 1997 finding of inadequacy has not been remedied and compels you to <br />recommend denial of this application. As yw ]mow, this reconsideration isbased upon the <br />applicant's December 22, 1997, response to the adequacy issues raised in the December 17, <br />1997, DMG letter notifying applicant that the "Stone Gravel Pit application was not adequate for <br />approval as originally submitted." Of course, rejection of the application on these and other <br />grounds way the position forwarded by several parties, including my clients, at the informal pre- <br />heating conference held in Cortez, Colorado on December 9, 1997, and which were submitted in <br />writing on December 16, 1997. <br />Review of the entire file in this case compels a recommendation that the MLRB reject <br />this application. Rejection is especially appropriate in light of the DMG finding that the <br />"applicatio-~ was not adequate for approval as originally submitted." Careful comparison with <br />Stone's response of December 22, 1998, reveals that the applicant has not remedied the reasons <br />for the initial finding. <br />Water tun-off issues have already been raised for presentation at the formal hearing. <br />However, it bears repeating here that the applicant has not presented adequate hydrological <br />information. These problems include applicant's refusal to presrnt to DMG a storma~ater <br />management plan that he has allegedly already developed. <br />The water problems also include applicant's statement that, "Natural slopes aze generally <br />west to east, beginning with the first eight mining units sloping to the east-southeast, and the <br />remainder of the units sloping to the east-northeast," (¶6 of Stone's December 221etter), while <br />providing reclamation plans that claim "a gently undulating surface with a slight varying (1 to <br />3%) gradient to the west will result from the finished operations." I(~d. q8). Review of the <br />application file leaves a reader utterly unable to determine the direction and rate of slope of all <br />reclaimed Lands with any reliability. Applicant's stated reason for failing to generate "detailed <br />ground contours" is the '`prohibitive cost and environmental disruption involved" ILd.). <br />