PERMFILE43364 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. The Objectors Have Access To All Records In The Public File. Objectors assert that all of [he documents pertaining to Allen's application in the files of the Division of Minerals and Geology ("Division") have not been made available to them.[ The availability of documents within the Division's files is not within the control of Allen. However, the Division has informed Allen that all files relating to Allen's application aze available for review by the public at the Division's offices in full compliance with Rule 1.3(1) of the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials ("Rules"). Objectors may review those documents at the Division's office at any time during the office's business hours. Moreover, as explained by Bruce Humphries, to the best knowledge of the Division, the Objectors have been supplied copies of all documents relating to this application. See June 7, 2006 Correspondence from Bruce Humphries to the Mined Land Reclamation Board (Exhibit 56)? These copies were provided to Objectors no later than May 24, 2006 -more than 120 days prior to the scheduled September hearing. More importantly, the Division has responded to each of Objectors' requests for documents within days of the request. The Objectors also base their Motion, in part, on Allen's alleged failure to file particulaz records with the Pazk County Clerk and Recorder. The Rules require only copies of the application and any amendments to be placed on file with that office. See Rule 1.6.2(1)(b)-(c). Contrary to the assertions of [he Objectors, Rule 1.6.2(2) does not require any particulaz ' Allen objects [o all new arguments raised by Objectors after [he close of [he public comment period on March 24, 2006. C.R.S. § 34-32.5- l 14 mandates that all comments to an application "shall be filed with the board or office not more than twenty days after the date of last publication of notice made pursuant to Section 34-32.5-112(9)" (emphasis added). Thus, consideration of any new argument for denying the application is indirect contradiction [o [he statute. As acknowledged by the Division in its application form, "the Office is no[ allowed [o consider comments, unless [hey aze written and received prior to the end of [he public comment period" (see Exhibit 5 a[ p. 7). Therefore, the Board should summarily deny all arguments other than those regarding wildlife habitat, hydrology or water quality. z Unless otherwise noted, all referenced exhibit numbers aze those numbers used by Allen for its exhibits submitted at the pre-hearing conference on June l5, 2006, and in its Notice of Rebuttal Exhibits, submitted on August i, 2006.