2022-03-21_ENFORCEMENT - M2004044

Home Browse Search

4. During the review period, the Division generated three adequacy review letters. The Applicant addressed all the Division's adequacy issues to the Division's satisfaction. 5. On December 27, 2021, based on the applicable requirements of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials,Article 32.5 of Title 34, C.R.S. ("Act") and the Rules, the Division issued and served on all parties both a written recommendation for approval with a condition of the Amendment Application over objection and a written rationale for that recommendation. 6. On January 7, 2022, the Board, through a prehearing officer, conducted a prehearing conference via videoconference. The prehearing officer issued a draft prehearing order. Among other things, the draft prehearing order identified 14 issues for the parties to present to the Board for consideration. At the hearing, the Board considered the draft prehearing order and invited amendments or adjustments to be proposed by the parties. The Board adopted the draft prehearing order as presented. 7. On January 11, 2022, Applicant filed a motion to strike and exclude evidence and testimony Applicant argued was irrelevant to and outside the scope of AM-2. 8. At the hearing, the Board heard argument on Applicant's motion. Applicant reiterated its arguments that much of the proposed testimony and exhibits proffered by Objectors were irrelevant to the narrow scope of AM-2. Objectors stated that they would limit their presentation to information relevant to AM-2. With the parties agreeing that the presentations should be relevant to AM-2, the Board denied Applicant's motion. 9. At the hearing, the Division, Applicant, and Objectors presented testimony on the jurisdictional issues outlined in the prehearing order. 10. Regarding issues related to the application and public notice, the testimony reflected that Operator had complied with the notice requirements. Notice was published in the Brighton Standard Blade, and though the paper initially misfiled the notice on its website, online publication is not required under the Act or Rules. The Division also posted application materials on its website and helped people access those files. Operator also provided the required notices to both Adams and Weld counties and received confirmation of those submissions. 11. Regarding Applicant's mining plan, the testimony from the Division established that extraction is limited to areas within slurry wall boundaries, mine signs were present and compliant, and that the Applicant had either complied with the conditions of its permit or would be complying with them as ongoing conditions. The Division's testimony also established that berms on site were required and that it would continue to monitor and control those aspects of the operation. Aggregate Industries—MR, Inc. Tucson South Resource/M-2004-044 2