APPCOR11163 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

=~ IIIIIIIIIIIIillllll ~ 999 STATE OF COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 303 866-3567 Fn x: 303 632-8106 DATE: January 3, 1991 T0: Fred Banta ~/ FROM: Oan Mathews ~ ~`/ RE: Rimrock Board Hearing . pF COO ~~/_, 4 9 NT%~ ~ ~~ e ~n} •r {~;Y ~ Roy Romer, Governor Fred R. Banta, Division Director The Board upheld our proposed decision to approve a permit application submitted by Mr. William T. Davis at the November 15, 1990 Board Meeting. As you are aware, however, there were problems which made our presentation less effective than it should have been. had been spent on the details of our presentation. I believe the problems stemmed partially from procedural errors made during the review of the permit which were not discovered until they were raised by TREND, the party appealing the decision, Further, I think there were some flaws in the way our presentation was structured and that insufficient time Errors associated with the permit review included the failure to obtain an updated letter from the Division of Wildlife regarding potential impacts of the operation and failure to obtain a letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer confirming the absence of structures listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. These issues were resolved satisfactorily prior to the Board Hearing, but they should have been addressed prior to issuance of our proposed decision. At the hearing itself, I think the board experienced some confusion because they were not provided with a clear picture of the location, layout and physical surroundings of the proposed operation. The Board could have been better oriented by the use of appropriate maps and slides in the introductory portions of our presentation. We had originally discussed doing this but decided against it due to Frank's recommendation that such information was not necessary to support our case and that it would unnecessarily prolong the hearing. In retrospect, it would probably have been time well spent. Two incidents which occurred during the hearing disrupted our presentation and caused further confusion on the part of the Board. First, Bill Crick aodressed certain ground water issues which had been raised by TREND and engaged in extended discussion with a TREND representative in the audience. Bill had not been involved in any of our pre-hearing preparation. It was my understanding that Berhan Keffelew would address the groundwater issue. We had discussed the issues raised by TREND and the points that Berhan would make in the presentation although there was no actual rehearsal of the testimony. I was not aware that Bill would be testifying at all, or that he had even been involved in the permit review. Evidently, Berhan and Bill made the decision that Bill would address the ground water issue immediately prior to the hearing.