Laserfiche WebLink
11. Objection from Patricia L. Crader, dated 1/3/06, DMG received 1/6/06. <br />12. Objection from Audrey Arney, dated 1/5/06, DMG received 1/6/06. <br />13. Objection from Bill Welch, dated 1/5/06, DMG received 1/6/06 <br />]4. Objection from Rex and Renata Replogle, dated 1/7/06, DMG received 1/10/06. <br />15. Objection from Paul Peter Urone and Patricia Urone, dated 1/9/06, DMG received 1/10/06. <br />16. Objection from Dr. James Hudson, dated 3/11/06, DMG received 3/15/06. This objection was <br />submitted during the public comment period for the amendment to the application filed 2/15/06. <br />II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTING PARTIES DURING THE COMBINED COMMENT <br />PERIOD: <br />Issues raised by objecting parties are listed below in bold italicized print. The Division's response to <br />objection issues follows. Issues that the Division believes are not within the jurisdiction of the Division <br />or Board are listed afterwards. <br />A. ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />1. Please schedule a hearing on the application in Delta or Grand Junction. <br />The Mined Land Reclamation Board holds numerous hearings at their monthly meeting. These hearings <br />address issues at mine sites that are located throughout the state. A meeting in Grand Junction or Delta <br />maybe convenient for those involved in this matter, but not for others having Board business. Board <br />meetings are held in Denver by Board directive. <br />2. The permit should be denied in the interest of satisfying citizen's concerns. <br />The Act and Rules provide opportunity for public participation throughout the permitting process. The <br />Board and DMG consider all comments submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and <br />Rules. CRS 34-32.5 115 states that, "The board or office shall not deny a permit except on one or more <br />of the following grounds:" Please refer to CRS 34-32.5 115 (a) - (g) of the Construction Material Act. <br />3. Comments that the Board should consider the cumulative impacts and deny the permit <br />because none of these issues have been resolved <br />The Act and Rules do not specifically address cumulative impacts of a mining operation, many of which <br />individually fall under the jurisdiction of other state and local agencies. Each application is reviewed by <br />DMG and approved or denied based upon whether or not its content meets the minimum requirements of <br />the Act and Rules. Comments and/or recommendations received from other governmental agencies as <br />well as those received from the public, are considered and addressed by DMG as specified by the Act <br />and Rules. <br />4. Comments regarding a false and misleading land use description for the surrounding area. <br />Not a mining or industrial area, but a residential area. <br />Rule 6.4.5 (2)(b) requires that an application include a comparison of the proposed post-mining land use <br />to other land uses in the vicinity and to adopted state and local land use plans and programs. The <br />proposed post mining land use of rangeland is compatible with adjacent rangeland, reclaimed mine sites, <br />