My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-01-09_REVISION - M2006009 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2006009
>
2007-01-09_REVISION - M2006009 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 5:57:06 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:25:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2006009
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/9/2007
Doc Name
Administrative Appeal Hearing Request
From
Geological Services
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR1
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.
/
2
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 />v <br />O <br />P <br />Y <br />~-- I:~d~icnl G~n~cc~s <br />~r~ ` '~` 711 Nsirtnum 1[~~d <br />G~rtci, Cli i1:1221~N12J <br />Mined Land Reclamation Boazd <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />I.tJN'% <br />dcgnger(~gobrainstorm.net <br />Ph: (970) 565-8394 <br />[Voice - Faz -Message] <br />R <br />~ Fc~~'d1~~-~ <br />p;~ls qN2 J <br />Mj„ ~9 I ,QN2ZOOJ <br />a~asai a«~n <br />ety <br />J~ <br />G,F; . <br />R:. <br />RE: Technical Revision Denial Administrative Appeal Hearing Request <br />Permit N~ M 2006-009, TR-I <br />Gentlemen: <br />~~~f ~~'d <br />®`~?~4T <br />rF, <br />=~~n <br />November 1, 2006, the operator, IAfS~t SANDSTONE, 1.LC, requested a technical revision through <br />their agent, Douglas L. Conger, to revise the boundaries of the Hindmarsh Sandstone quarry, <br />Permit # M 2006-009. The purpose of the adjustment, as described, was to allow use of more of the <br />bottom land for stockpiling, and to indefinitely delay mining of an equal acreage of the sandstone <br />butte in the southeast quarter of the property, which is separated from the remaining mining area by <br />McElmo Creek. <br />The Office responded November 29, with an "Incomplete Application" notification that amounts to a <br />denial of the TR-I application, requiring instead a modified permit amendment with a reduced initial <br />application fee, but requiring the fullapplication/amendment processes with notice requirements. <br />We hold that the definition of technical revision in Rule 1.1(49), which states... <br />`...a change in the permit or an application which does <br />not have more than a minor effect upon the approved or <br />proposed Reclamation Plan." <br />is appropriate in this case, since, <br />• The boundary adjustment requested makes no change in the total acreage of the <br />permit area, <br />The soils description and the reclamation requirement of the exchanged area aze <br />identical to that already described in the current permit for the adjacent O;~ce <br />Traiter/Parking Yazd, <br />The proposed expanded stockpile yard has the much less disruptive operations use <br />of product storage, than the high impact use of mining the Southeast Butte azea <br />excluded; no permanent change of elevation nor surface reconfiguration, <br />The proposed exchanged area is totally within the boundaries of the <br />Operator/Landowner's owned property, and not adjacent to a neighboring owner, <br />unlike the Southeast Butte area. <br />On the other hand an amendment, as defined by Rule 112(7)(a)(6) ... <br />File: Comp / C / RAesaSS ! HindmarshAppeal <br />08 January 2007 <br />~mzoo~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.