PERMFILE66446

• Permit No: M1997089
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 1/22/1998
• Doc Name: RECENT AMENDMENTS STONE GRAVEL PIT PN M-97-089 PERMIT APPLICATION
• From: TRAVIS E STILLS
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• TRAVIS E. STILLS •
ATTORNEY S. COUNSELOR AT LAW
P.O. eox 1102
DU RANGO, COLORADO (31302
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: (970) 2$9-7$ 14 / EMAIL: STILLS FRONTIER.NET
RECEIVED
Director Mike Long
Division of Minerals and Geology SAN 2 2 1998
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
iii iuiiiiiiiiiiiii
999
January 20, 1998
via: fax & mail
Denver, Colorado 80203 DivlSiOnolMinerals&Geology
Fax: [phone]
RE: Recent Amendments, Stone Gravel Pit, Permit Application No M-97-089
Dear Director Long,
This letter is written on behalf of Susie and Rick Bell, Betty and Buck Morris, and Rick
and Lynda Emerson, all recognized parties to the hearing on the Stone Gravel Pit Application, to
request that you remove the Stone Gravel Pit Application from [he January hearing docket.
My recent review of the application file reveals that on December 26, 1997, Doug
Conger, Agent for Daren Stone, submitted a 17 page response to the December 17, 1997, finding
of Wally H. Erickson, DMG, that the "Stone Gravel Pit application was not adequate for
approval as originally submitted." Mr. Conger's 17 page response includes map revisions that
extend the acreage to be mined and has a significant effect upon the proposed Reclamation Plan
and is therefore an "amendment" under Construction Material Rules and Regulations. Rule
1.1(6).
The amended Pre-Mining Map extends the number of proposed mining units from 12 to
16, therefore increasing the acreage to be mined. An "intermittent drainage channel" has been
added to the proposal, as have "permanent surface water retention berms" that will measure three
feet high by nine feet wide and extend along the entire east side of the operation. While these
additions may be beneficial additions to the proposal, a proper amount of time is needed for
review. Preliminary review of the significant changes by the 17 page amendment indicates that
the very serious flaws in the application and the mining proposal have not been remedied and the
amendment may have created new problems.
The amendment, filed after the infom~al pre-hearing conference, requires a new date for
consideration that is no[ "any earlier than forty-five (45) days after the date of receipt of the
application amendment." Rule 1.8.4. The time clock for hearing the amendment has not yet
begun because the applicant has not yet provided the required documents that demonstrate
whether [he tiling and notice requirements were fulfilled. I should also point out that even if the
17 page amendment is deemed a "technical revision," the Rules prevent this application from