REV89081

• Permit No: C1984065
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 5/15/1991
• Doc Name: NEW CASTLE ENERGY CORP TR 6 PR 2 FN C-84-065
• From: MLRD
• To: MARK BEAN GARFIELD CNTY COURTHOUSE
• Type & Sequence: PR2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

999
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman SI.. Room 215
Denver. CO 80203
303 866-3567
FAX: [phone]
STATE OF COLORADO
of _~~
4~ _: • q-~
N~
.~~~~
•Ci~.Ly+' .
~ /8'!6 ~
Roy Romer.
Governor
Fred R. Banta,
Division Director
May 15, 1991
Mr: Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: New Caste Energy Corporation
Technical Revision #6, Permit Revision #2
(File C-84-065)
Dear h1r. Bean:
On December 21, 1990 New Castle Energy Corporation filed a Technical Revision
to the approved permit. This revision proposed to incorporate a water supply
pipeline into the permit area. The pipeline crossed through a culvert under a
county road. As the pipeline crossed under the county road, it intersected
the road right-of-way:
On February 26, 1991 New Castle Energy Corporation filed a Permit Revision to
the approved permit: This revision proposed to incorporate a loadout facility
into the permit area. The boundary of the loadout area may come to within 100
feet of a county road right-of-way.
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 2.07.6 {2 )(d)(iv)(b), the Division published notice
of a proposed public hearing to be held in the vicinity of the operation. The
purpose of the hearing was to obtain information from the public pertaining to
potential impacts to the public and affected landowners given that the revised
permit areas, as proposed, would come to within 100 feet of each road
right-of-way: On April 18, 1991 the Division held the hearing as provided for
in Rule 2:07 :6(2)(d)(iv)(C). Public input was solicited from and provided by
the public.
Rule 2.07 :6 (2 )(d)(iv}(D) requires that the Division make a written finding
based upon information received at the public hearing. The finding must
specify whether or not the interests of the public and affected ]andowners
will be protected.
No information was submitted at the public hearing which demonstrated that the
interests of the public or of affected landowners would be adversely
affected. Therefore, the Division makes the finding that the interests of the
public and affected landowners will be protected. This finding is consistent
with the Division's analyses of the revision proposals, conducted
independently of the public hearing.