My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-03-17_REVISION - M2005060
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2005060
>
2011-03-17_REVISION - M2005060
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:58:10 PM
Creation date
3/21/2011 7:55:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005060
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
3/17/2011
Doc Name
Preliminary Review
From
DRMS
To
Weld County
Type & Sequence
CN1
Email Name
ECS
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
Page 4 of 4 <br />of the proposed permit area. If the area east of the line, or the 200' corridor for the line, is removed from the <br />application, it will constitute an amendment to the application which will require re-publication of public <br />notice, and re-submittal of the amended application to all parties. It would also require a new permit <br />amendment to add that affected acreage back into the permit at a later date. <br />The Division would be willing to entertain option b.) listed above if the pipeline ownership absolutely <br />cannot be determined, but I am unsure at this point how it could be sufficiently demonstrated that a pipeline <br />crossing would not damage the line when the depth, construction, etc are unknown at this time. <br />Obviously, the easiest way to resolve this issue at this time would be to locate the owners of the line and <br />obtain an agreement that satisfies option a.) of Exhibit S for a pipeline crossing. You should also specify <br />that the current 200' offset area is still within the affected acreage of the permit in case you can move closer <br />at some point in the future. <br />Additional Information: You will also need to provide the Division with proof of notice publication. Any <br />letters from other commenting agencies/entities received by the Division to date have been included with <br />this correspondence for you to review. <br />This concludes the Division's preliminary adequacy review of this application. This letter shall not be <br />construed to mean that there are no other technical deficiencies in your application. Other issues may arise <br />as additional information is supplied. Please remember that the decision date for this amendment <br />application is May 23, 2011. As previously mentioned, if you are unable to provide satisfactory responses <br />to any inadequacies prior to this date, it will be your responsibility to request an extension of time to allow <br />for continued review of this application. If there are still unresolved issues when the decision date arrives <br />and no extension has been requested, the application will be denied. If you have any questions, please <br />contact me at (303) 866-3567 x8140. <br />Sincerely, <br />Eric Scott - Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Enclosures: original certifications page, replies to notifications
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.