Laserfiche WebLink
~7!-19-1959 133'_?M FPCM <br />Decision. <br /> <br />Lastly, the Opponent's azgument that five specitc items have "still not been resolved from the <br />orisinal concerns" is also without merit. Each of these items has been addressed in considerablz <br />detail in the in the Applicant's 23 October 1998 reused subatittal, the Division's 9 November <br />1993 Recommendation for Approval, the Draft Hearing Order handed out in the 1 Drembzr <br />1998 Pre-Hearing Conference, and during the Public Hearing. T'ne Opponents refuse to <br />acknowledge or accept that the Division has formally determined that it cannot and will not enter <br />into determining compliance with the terms and conditions of the Routt County SUP and that <br />these aze "issues not to be considered" during the MLRB Permit process. The failure of the <br />Opponents to be in attendance at the Public Hearing or that they disa~ee with the formal <br />findings of the Public Service Company of Colorado, with respect to the natural gas pipeline, <br />and the formal findings of the technical Staff of the Division of Minerals and Geology with <br />respect to these five issues does not constirute Bounds for the Board to `4econsider" its 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 />i "Ihe Board may exclude incompetent and unduly repetitious evidence." And subsection c of this <br />regulation states "The Boazd may utilize its experience, technical competence, and specialized <br />knowledge in 44e evaluation of the evidence presented to it." And lastly, Rule 2.9.3 provides the <br />guidance in detPrm;ning how the Boazd will consider requests to "reconsider' their Decisions. <br />~ This regulation states "The Boazd may ~atit of deny the petition based solely on the written <br />submittal." Since the Opponentr have presented vimtally no technical informatioq continue to <br />I rehash issues which have already bern formally addressed or which have been determined to be <br />irrelevant, and have not provided a single specific azea 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 fees that this request should be denied. <br />If the Boazd has any questions regazding this matter 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 />~~ <br />cc: C.D.Johnson <br />Luke Tellier <br />Tony Connell <br />John Vanderbloemen <br />Kent A. Crofts <br />]ME <br />P.O. Box 270 <br />Yampa,. CO 80483 <br />