Laserfiche WebLink
_ _. _... .< a_r~i rrv~ T(} • 139=c3~5195 =. 94 <br />Decision. <br />Lastly, the Opponent's argument that five specific items have "still not been resolved from the <br />original concerns" is also without merit. Each of these items has been addressed in considerable <br />detail in the in the Applicant's 23 October 1998 revised submittal, the Division's 4 November <br />1998 Recorrtmendation for Approval, the Draft Hearing Order handed out in the 1 December <br />1998 Pre-Hearing Conference, and during the Public Hearing. The Opponents refuse to <br />acknowledge or accept that the Division has formally determined that it catmot and will not enter <br />into determining compliance with Ure terms and conditions of the Routt County SUP and that <br />these are "issues not to be considered" during the MLRB Permit process. The failure of the <br />Opponenu to be in attendance at the Public Heaing or that they disagree with the formal <br />findings of the Public Service Company of Colorado, with respect to the natural gas pipeline, <br />and the formal ftndings of the technical Staff of the Division of Minerals and Geology with <br />respect to these five issues does not constitute grounds for the Boazd to `reconsider" iu Decision <br />to approve this Permit. <br />The Division's Regulations at Rule 2.6(1) state "the Board may make all factual determinations <br />necessary to evaluate the application relative to the basis of the appeal." Rule 2.8.1 (b)(iii) states <br />"The Boazd may exclude incompetent and unduly repetitiotts evidence." And subsection c of this <br />regulation states "The Board may utilize its experience, technical competence, and specialized <br />knowledge in 4're evaluation of the evidence presented to it "And lastly, Rule 2.9.3 provides the <br />guidance is determining how the Board will consider requests to "reconsider" their Decisions. <br />This regulation states "Ihc Boazd may grant or deny the petition based solely on the written <br />submittal." Since the Opponents have presented virtually no technical information, continue to <br />rehash issues which have already been formally addressed or which have been determined to be <br />irrelevant, and have not provided a single specific area where their technical information differs <br />with respect to the potential environmental impacts or feasibility of reclamation as formally <br />approved by Division Staff, the Applicant feels that this request should be denied. <br />If the Board has any questions regazding this matttt when they review this issue during their <br />scheduled meeting on 26 January 1999, the Applicant or his Agent maybe in attendance. <br />Sincerely, <br />t~~ <br />Kent A. Crofts <br />IME <br />P.O. Box 270 <br />Yampa, CO 80483 <br />cc: C.D.Johnson <br />Luke Tellier <br />Tony Connell <br />John Vanderbloemcn <br />