Laserfiche WebLink
Rules. During the public comment period, the Division received forty timely letters <br /> of objection and one comment letter from History Colorado. <br /> 4. The Division provided an extended comment deadline of August 22, <br /> 2021 to the City of Idaho Springs, which provided its concerns in a timely comment <br /> letter. <br /> 5. During the review period, the Division generated five adequacy review <br /> letters. The Applicant addressed all of the Division's adequacy issues to the <br /> Division's satisfaction. <br /> 6. The Division received 14 objection withdrawals during the application <br /> review period. <br /> 7. On May 17, 2022, based on the applicable requirements of the <br /> Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials, <br /> Article 32.5 of Title 34, C.R.S. (Ace) and the Rules, the Division issued and served <br /> on all parties both a written recommendation for approval of the Application over <br /> objection and a written rationale for that recommendation. <br /> S. On June 6, 2022, the Board, through a prehearing officer, conducted a <br /> prehearing conference. Eight objectors attended the prehearing conference and <br /> retained party status. The prehearing officer issued a draft prehearing order. <br /> Among other things, the draft prehearing order identified jurisdictional issues to be <br /> presented to the Board. <br /> 9. Prior to the June 22, 2022, Board meeting, an additional four objectors <br /> submitted Party Status Withdrawal Forms to the Board. <br /> 10. At the hearing, the Division presented information about the <br /> Application, the mining plan, and the application process. Regarding wildlife issues, <br /> the Division explained that though Colorado Parks and Wildlife ("CPW') did not <br /> submit a comment letter, it participated in an inspection of the site that provided an <br /> opportunity for its officers to provide input on the Application. The Division also <br /> presented testimony regarding the scope of its review under the Act and Rules, <br /> including that the Application was reviewed based on its impacts to the site rather <br /> than the potential for aggregate impacts with other nearby land uses beyond the <br /> proposed permit boundaries. The Division also presented testimony that though its <br /> review is limited by law to the permit boundaries, CPW does consider cumulative <br /> impacts on wildlife for an entire area when providing feedback on a permit <br /> application. <br /> 11. Ms.Agar raised concerns regarding an increase of traffic from the <br /> proposed operation and the impacts that traffic could have on the area.. Though Ms. <br /> Young Ranch Resource LLC <br /> Young Ranch Resource Quarry/M-2021.-009 2 <br />