Laserfiche WebLink
Rationale for Approval Recon- ndation May 8, 2001 <br />Four States Aggregates, LLCi • <br />and administer the provisions of this article... Therefore, DMG (the Office) has jurisdiction <br />to enforce the specific requirements of the Act and Rules, as delegated by the Board. <br />3. The proposed operation is contrary to numerous laws and regulations at the <br />federa/, state, and county /eve/ and therefore must be denied pursuant to C.R. S. <br />34-32.5-115Id1. <br />On January 17, 2Qo1, DMG provided notice of the application to the following <br />governmental bodies and agencies: <br />Montezuma County Commissioners; <br />Montezuma County Planning Director; <br />Board of Supervisors of the Dolores Soil Conservation District; <br />Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health <br />and Environment; <br />Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health <br />and Environment; <br />Division of Water Resources of the Office of State Engineer of the <br />Department of Natural Resources; <br />Division of Wildlife of the Department of Natural Resources; <br />Colorado Historical Society; <br />State Board of Land Commissioners or the Department of Natural Resources; <br />U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. <br />DMG has not received any correspondence from any governmental body or agency <br />indicating that the proposed operation is contrary to any law or regulation. <br />4. The application contains misrepresentations of material facts and numerous <br />errors that cou/d be interpreted as errors of omission. Statements within the <br />app/ication are speculative and without substantive basis. The permitting agent <br />has suppressed availab/e information that is not supportive of the proposed <br />operation. Misrepresentation of material facts is intended to mislead the Division. <br />As part of DMG's routine review process, DMG informs the applicant of all adequacy <br />issues identified during the review period. Issues raised by the objecting parties and <br />specifically addressed by the Act and Rules were addressed in DMG's adequacy review <br />process for the Line Camp application. The applicant responded to DMG adequacy issues <br />by amending the original application. The amended application provided additional <br />information, corrected the errors and appropriately satisfied the requirements of the Act <br />and Rules. Therefore, DMG found the Line Camp application adequate and recommended <br />approval of the application on the decision date, as required by C.R.S. 34-32.5-115(4). <br />4 <br />