Laserfiche WebLink
_. ._ .._- +c~i~n'i rr.U~ TO • 1303x3213106 P.02 <br />Members of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board 19 January ] 999 <br />Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Comments Relative to the Recent Appeal Made on the Decision of the Board to <br />Approve Permit Application Number M-98-058. <br />Dear Boazd Members: <br />As a representative of the Applicant, I have been asked to provide a written response to the <br />recent letter from Mr. and Mrs. Diane Anderson, dated 6 January 1994, which we received <br />via FAX on 13 January 1999, wherein they requested that the Boazd reconsider its Decision to <br />approve the above-mentioned Permit Application. Iles letter is being submitted to address <br />several errors and atisuaderstandings found in the above-mentioned letter and which we feel <br />need to be corrected. <br />We fully recognize that according to your Rules and Regulations at Rule 2.9 that "any party to a <br />hearing may petition the Boazd to reconsider its decision." However, we fell that there are other <br />pertinent regulations which must be considered in the Boazd's determination as to whether such a <br />request may be granted. Rule 2.9.1 (2) stages "such petitions must set forth a clear and thorough <br />explanation of the grounds justifying reconsideration" The recent request makes no attempt to <br />present a "clear and thorough explanation" as to why they are making this request and contains <br />the idrntical concerns repeatedly brought forward during the state permitting process. The only <br />basis the Opponents have in malting this request is that thry disagree with the Decision reached <br />by the Division Staff in rewmmendiag approval and the Board in approving this Permit <br />Application. Since their letter fails in iu burden of proof of establishing why such a <br />"reconsideration" is necessary, this request should be rejected. <br />Their letter states that the Applicant was given an opportunity to provide "answers" to the <br />objections filed to this Permit, but that they were never given any opportunity "to respond to the <br />'answers' given . , . that is until 'testimony' at the formal Boazd Hearing." This statement is <br />completely false and contrary to the Public Record of events which has transpired. Forma] <br />responses to the initial objections raised by the Opponents were filed by the Applicant on 23 <br />October 1998. Therefore, the Opponents had from this date until the Public Hearing on ] 6 <br />December 1998 to rebut the accuracy of statements made by the Applicant to their written <br />objections. It can be documented in their letter to the Boazd dated 14 December 1998 that they <br />had access to this information. Their failure to embellish their concerns, either in written form or <br />by designating an agent to represent them at the Public Hearing, within the required regulatory <br />time frame, is insufficient grounds for the Board to "reconsider" its Decision. <br />During the Informal Conference held in Steamboat Springs on 20 October 1998 and the 1 <br />December 1998 Pre-Hearing Conference, the Opponents were informed that they could submit <br />any additional or supplemental witnesses, exhibits or written information for consideration at the <br />Public Hearing. One condition of this was that copies of this supplemental information needed to <br />be sent to all of the interested parties. The Applicant complied by submitting a letter dated 7 <br />