REV15797 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • ~'~ ~S ~~~~> 112 Permit Amendment Application: Colona Pit Hearing Jan 25-26, 1995 Application: ,~,,,,mm Received by DMG and deemed complete: Oct 3, 1994 ly.°~'- Objections: Due to objections having been received during the comment period, a well-defined procedure was begun. All definitions of parties and timeframes set forth in the Rules concerning meetings, published and mailed notices have been strictly followed by the Division. All timely objectors were sent notice of a scheduled Informal Conference. The informal conference was held in Montrose, CO, on Dec 19, 1994. Bruce Humphries was the officer. All timely objectors and persons attending the informal conference are now considered as parties. No new issues were received from any parties during or after the informal conference. At the Dec 14-15, 1994 MLRB meeting, the Board appointed Luke Danielson as the Pre-hearing Conference officer. The application decision date was Jan 3, 1995. Because of the objections, the Division does not make the decision about the application, but may recommend a decision to the Board. There were still objectors, so a pre-hearing conference was scheduled. On Jan 3, 1995, all parties were sent notice of the following: the scheduled pre-hearing conference, the Division's recommendation to the Board, and the scheduled Board hearing for this matter. On Jan 13, 1995, the pre-hearing conference was held in Montrose, CO. The officer heard the various issues raised by the parties in attendance, and decided which were under the jurisdiction of the Board, and could therefore be heard at the hearing. These are listed in the Pre-hearing Board Order. A summary of the issues identified in the written objections is in your packet, also. Division adequacy review: The normal items and timeframes were followed by staff in this review, including a pre-operation site inspection. All lacking or unclear items in the application were identified in an adequacy letter to the operator. The items of most concern to the Division included: 1. wildlife impacts, specifically, to elk migration routes, eagle roosting sites, and loss of habitat (wooded and brushy areas); 2. complete and adequate documentation of permit boundaries, and features and activities on the maps; 3. wetland impacts at northeast corner of expansion area, and other bottomland impacts from planned activities;