Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />7. At the final hearing, the Board's attorney presented the Pre-hearing Order to the Board on behalf <br />of the Pre-hearing Officer. The Board adopted the Pre-hearing Order without amendment. <br />8. At the final hearing, Lames E. Preston, attorney for the Akin/Stepe party, and David B. Wuchert, <br />individual party and also a representative of the CFAR objector group, asserted that they had <br />requested subpoenas for two employees of [he Water Quality Control Division, Colorado <br />Department of Public Health and Environment, and also asserted that the Boazd had erred in <br />failing to issue those subpoenas. With regard to the assertions of Preston and Wuchert, the <br />Board finds the following: <br />a. Mr. Preston's and Mr. Wuchert's written requests for subpoenas were contained in the <br />exhibit and witness lists they submitted to the Pre-hearing Officer at the Pre-hearing <br />Conference. The written requests were not submitted as separate motions to the Board. <br />The Board's attorney also received a telephone request for subpoenas from Mr. Preston <br />and referred Mr. Preston to the appropriate attorneys who represent the Water Quality <br />Control Division. <br />b. According to the representations at the hearing made by Jerry Goad, Assistant Attorney <br />General for the Water Quality Control Division, the intended purpose of calling the two <br />Water Quality Control Division employees, as stated to Mr. Goad by Mr. Wuchert, was <br />either to question the potential witnesses about the procedures of the Water Quality <br />Control Division, which is an avenue of inquiry over which the Board has no jurisdiction, <br />or to use the Water Quality Control Division employees as expert witnesses, which is an <br />improper use of state agency employees. <br />c. According to the testimony of Division staff, the water quality data reviewed by the <br />Division to reach its recommendation was not limited to data from the Water Quality <br />Control Division. <br />d. In light of the above, the Board concludes that it did not err by not issuing the requested <br />subpoenas. <br />9. Based on the record, the Board makes the following findings as to the issues presented in the <br />Pre-hearing Order: <br />a. All appropriate agencies were notified of the application and all <br />comments and/or recommendations were considered by the Division staff. <br />b. All parties were adequately notified. <br />c. The Boazd makes no finding as to whether the agent for the applicant has been "candid <br />and forttu-ight." The Applicant, through its agent, has met the minimum requirements of <br />the Construction Materials Act and Rules. There is no evidence in the record [hat the <br />agent for the Applicant has submitted false information. <br />d. The wildlife statement is adequate and complete. <br />2 <br />