Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Steve G. Renner 2 <br />documents are to be made available to the public only during permit <br />reviews and through established public comment periods. MLRD goes on to <br />point out that Colorado Rule 5.02.4 does address public availability of <br />records. Again, this rule requires that all pertinent records be <br />accessible to the public, both at State offices and at a convenient <br />place in the area of the mine. MLRD states that the permittee is <br />complying with the requirement to maintain records. <br />MLRD's interpretation of Rule 2.07.3(4) regarding the availability of <br />permit application documents only at the time of permit review has not <br />required maintenance of those records at the county courthouse. <br />However, it is our belief that permitting documents should be retained <br />beyond permit approval. Rule 2.07.3(4) is the State counterpart to 30 <br />CFR 773.13 which is based, in part, on 30 USC 1202 Section 102(i) of the <br />Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Section 102(i) of the <br />Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act requires that procedures are <br />provided for the public participation in the development, revision, and <br />enforcement of regulations, standards, reclamation plans or programs <br />established by the Secretary or any State under this Act. To meet the <br />requirements of Section 102(i), the permitting documents should be <br />available for public review throughout the mining and reclamation phases <br />of the permit. <br />In addition to the above, I would call your attention to a recent reply <br />to the Garfield Citizen's Alliance by the Director of the Office of <br />Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) regarding a recent 733 <br />petition. The Director's response to the Alliance 733 petition under <br />Issue No. 1 provides additional guidance to the matter at hand. <br />Specifically, the Director addresses the availability and retention of <br />permit application documents in accordance with Rule 2.07.3(4). The <br />Director's letter dated February 6, 1991, to the Garfield Citizen's <br />Alliance is enclosed for your review. <br />AFO agrees with the part of MLRD's response regarding Colorado Rule <br />5.02.4. OSM's RSI indicated that mine records including water <br />monitoring, both baseline and operational, and pond inspections, as well <br />as development rock disposal inspections, were available and were being <br />maintained at the minesite. No violations were observed under this <br />rule. <br />However, the RSI did indicate that an apparent violation was noted under <br />Rule 2.07.3(4). That was evidenced by the review of the county records <br />for this mine. AFO would also point out that during the inspection of <br />those records, the county recorder reported that the files have not been <br />purged. It was reported that they filed the records on receipt with <br />other records of the same type and kept them in perpetuity. As stated <br />earlier in the Minesite Inspection Report, there were technical <br />revisions on file for the mine, but no other permit documents were <br />noted. One last comment regarding the review of those records, the AFO <br />inspector did note other mine plans on file for other mines in that <br />county, both those operating and in reclamation. <br />