Laserfiche WebLink
MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD MEETING <br /> October 26-27,2016 <br /> Permit Amended Application to a 112(c) with Objections <br /> Hazeltine Mine RECEIVED <br /> Applicant: Aggregate Industries—WCR, Inc. OCT Q 5 2016 <br /> DRMS Permit M-2004-0031 <br /> Permit Amendment Application No. 1. DMSION OF RECLAMATION <br /> MINING AND SAFETY <br /> APPLICANT'S DISPOSITIVE MOTION REGARDING NON-JURISDICTIONAL <br /> ISSUES AND TO LIMIT EVIDENCE AT HEARING <br /> Applicant,Aggregate Industries-WCR,Inc.,by its attorneys,Fowler,Schimberg,Flanagan <br /> & McLetchie, P.C., hereby submits its Dispositive Motion Regarding Non-Jurisdictional Issues <br /> and to Limit Evidence at Hearing as follows: <br /> Applicant attended the Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) Pre-Hearing Conference <br /> on October 3, 2016. Jeff Graves was the pre-hearing conference officer who presided over the <br /> conference. As outlined in the Notice for the Pre-Hearing Conference,one of the matters discussed <br /> was the proposed list of issues that MLRB believes are beyond its authority and, therefore, are <br /> "non jurisdictional". It is these non jurisdictional issues that are the subject of Applicant's Motion. <br /> While the proposed Pre-hearing Order has not issued, MLRB did identify several disputed <br /> issues raised in response to Applicant's permit amendment application that it believed were outside <br /> its regulatory authority at the pre-hearing conference. To guide the discussions regarding these <br /> non jurisdictional matters and other matters outside the scope of Applicant's proposed <br /> amendment, the hearing officer referred to the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and <br /> Safety (DRMS) Rationale for Recommendation to Approve Amendment No. 01 ►vith Objections <br /> (Pennit No. M-2004-0031) dated September 26, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. In its <br /> Recommendation letter, DRMS identified at least three potential non jurisdictional issues: U.S. <br /> Army Corps of Engineer (ACE) 404 permit compliance (Issue#4); maintenance of the Bull Seep <br /> Channel (Issue #8); and requirements for future land use conditions and/or covenants (Issue #9). <br /> (Exhibit A, pp. 3-6). <br /> While not previously identified as a non jurisdictional issue by DBMS in its <br /> Recommendation letter, Applicant believes that there are elements of Issue#2 (concerns regarding <br /> the amendment/operation being in compliance with applicable Colorado water law), specifically, <br /> Objector City of Thornton's request for an augmentation plan in support of the amendment, that <br /> are also beyond the authority of DBMS and MLRB and that evidence related to any demand by an <br />