My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE138715
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE138715
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:39:24 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 8:00:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998058
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
10/29/1998
Doc Name
TELLIER GRAVEL PIT PERMIT APPLICATION REVISED TECHNICAL ADEQUACY RESPONSES
To
CARL MOUNT
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.
/
7
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 />have changed nothing in our original proposal. Both issues are discussed at length in <br />our original Permit Application. Our understanding our your regulations in Rule 1.1(49) <br />regarding a technical revision is that: <br />"Technical Revision" means a change in the permit or an application, which does <br />not have more than a minor effect upon the approved or proposed Reclamation <br />Plan." <br />While Rule 1.1(6) defines amendment as: <br />"Amendment" means a change in the permit or an applicant which increases the <br />acreage of the affected land, or which has a significant effect on the approved <br />or proposed Reclamation Plan." <br />Our response to these matters is than virtually nothing has changed in how we are <br />proposing to conduct our proposed mining operations or reclamation. Both items were <br />clearly identified in our original submittal, in our opinion the only thing which has <br />changed is clarification in how these matters will be addressed. When we asked Ms. <br />Crosby about what changes we were proposing, which would possibly trigger either a <br />"technical revision" or an "amendment", she brought up the examples of the mining <br />next to the natural gas pipeline and the monitoring of the Anderson's Water well. <br />Neither of these examples is are changed in our Permit Application and we fail to <br />understand why the DMG needs to get involved in this matter in more detail than the <br />stipulations already required of these issues by Routt County. Therefore, with this letter <br />I am formally requesting clarification from the DMG as to what constitutes a "change" <br />in a Permit Application. I am being told that "clarification" is not viewed as a change, but <br />that is exactly what seems to be happening in this situation. <br />I trust that this information adequacy addresses the concerns supplied to me over the <br />telephone. <br />R~/espectfully, <br />Cl <br />Kent A. Crofts <br />IME <br />P.O. Box 270 <br />Yampa, CO 80483 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.