My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE128705
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE128705
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:25:49 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 6:30:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1997089
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/22/1998
Doc Name
PRE HEARING BOARD ORDER
From
DMG
To
PARTY TO THE STONE GRAVEL PIT APPLICATION
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.
/
15
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 /> <br />i. Has road approach permit from Montezuma County Road Department been verified? <br />j. Has groundwater permit through Division of Water Resources, Office of State Engineer, been <br />verified? <br />k. Is applicant required to indicate intent to secure appropriate permit for excavation and removal <br />of the cultural resources? <br />11. Does Exhibit N, Source of Legal Right to Enter, meet adequacy requirements? <br />a. Is the special warranty deed valid due to the potentially faulty identification of 320 acres <br />mineral estate? <br />b. Is the mineral sales contract dependant on Division of Minerals and Geology permit issuance? <br />c. Is the applicant's right of entry dependant on Bureau of Land Management completing <br />procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy and <br />Management Act, and Endangered Species Act? <br />d. Is the applicant's right of entry based on incorrect position that mineral estate has unlimited <br />and unrestrained use of the surface estate? <br />e. Is federal permission required to conduct on-site processing of mined materials? <br />12. Does Exhibit O, Owners of Record, meet adequacy requirements? <br />a. Was notice to adjacent landowner, Emerson, provided? <br />b. Have potentially affected mineral owners been noticed? <br />13. Did the Division provide sufficient notice for the Informal Conference? Was the <br />Division's denial of the requested extension appropriate? <br />14. Is the proposed operation contrary to the laws and regulations of the United States, <br />and therefore should be denied pursuant to § 34-32.5-115(4)(d-, C.R.S.? <br />a. Are issues of federal law within Division permitting jurisdiction? <br />b. Location is an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, cultural sites require a Class III <br />inventory, monitoring of alluvial areas, increased cultural resource patrols, and evaluation to <br />determine eligibility for National Register of Historic Places. <br />c. Is an Environmental Impact Statement required? <br />d. Is verification of compliance with National Historical Preservation Act, Native American Graves <br />Protection and Repatriation Act, and Archaeological Resources Protection Act required? <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.